From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 66233 invoked by alias); 4 Jul 2016 02:20:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 66224 invoked by uid 89); 4 Jul 2016 02:20:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=wow, history X-HELO: smtp.gentoo.org Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (HELO smtp.gentoo.org) (140.211.166.183) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 02:19:58 +0000 Received: from vapier.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1D50B340D80; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 02:19:57 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 02:20:00 -0000 From: Mike Frysinger To: Yao Qi Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Set unknown_syscall differently on arm linux Message-ID: <20160704021956.GQ4685@vapier.lan> Mail-Followup-To: Yao Qi , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <1467105996-18063-1-git-send-email-yao.qi@linaro.org> <20160629174103.GW4685@vapier.lan> <20160630125840.GB4685@vapier.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0ywUhQCikZ2Y3PNw" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-07/txt/msg00031.txt.bz2 --0ywUhQCikZ2Y3PNw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 739 On 30 Jun 2016 15:48, Yao Qi wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > wow, that code is messed up. can you raise a bug with them ? there's > > even more code paths in there that result in SIGSEGV too. the history > > predates 2.4.0 afaict. >=20 > Sure, I can raise a bug somewhere or ask it in arm kernel mail list, but > why do you think it is a bug that SIGILL is raised when an illegal/unknown > syscall number is passed to syscall? because other archs don't behave > this way? correct -- i know of no other arch that behaves this way. the syscall ABI is supposed to communicate errors via return values (which are errno values), not by sending signals which kill the process. -mike --0ywUhQCikZ2Y3PNw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-length: 819 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXecfMAAoJEEFjO5/oN/WBqgoQAL6eZLwzAzPXLdqDN4I/FLhU ZK/vBRRXabHT8IqlVUSwNp4mhxhO8phHNsSdgrkvRbyhZiWivpmipcrDv1WTiESQ Pa/V6mh1qCqqS/VewXenRyBU5Y9FFvSdEqy1cqO9s6DE9luw5rjGkv21vtNaUAqi sl5D0zwZRbJobqGzRL16oNFKd6DX8Oxig9rkBmmpnTPxTmsS9Jt75s2uWc3xCSA5 5mZTWOtBG/xprLdu7AKP3Fgf67Wrzbg9iTOm7GpcVGi2HtXeLkph06TfxEfAgrem mMz59e0OlqzrGN7ZyLX+Oy18tYfMY/e7rdbQJGYipqkhQ6d/C6rr6cHEUrOIFpsW QORw0ypw0SlJYX04DDDfsxih84g/v/shx62GbqdeNe76Y0VYI8BeyZtzqLgxHa6J deQhgkYuNiKT5c6Xi80a9aTabuazWPKaSpMoqQgiIGittgLgmxsReyC0OQBVf2jC Fkedm9uu9lqzrQMcUjNNo2tcpB3MDCL7B8WfnNGk/cjmfJqv3/q3hhBwcH4Tc4xr gVj0++ALAPe7h0WFsQOnwUUpVDVXA7NNPOkx+zS9xEddxBzmDeHRWTVccl5/ObgJ i3PnZDJsJxyfyvaWK4Ct+5slPdOdeLnPxi5TIMCNC1VHwMgMniB4CLjmX3Xp18+p AzIBkNrulfuMCB8okrIl =c/Ak -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0ywUhQCikZ2Y3PNw--