From patchwork Thu Mar 15 12:14:07 2012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Alexander Graf X-Patchwork-Id: 146934 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [208.118.235.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40A81B6F98 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 23:14:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:42399 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S89Zp-0002Y9-1E for incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:14:41 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40985) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S89ZZ-0002Cj-VR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:14:31 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S89ZY-0002Oa-6I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:14:25 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48260 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S89ZX-0002O9-WC; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:14:24 -0400 Received: from relay1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C78390349; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:14:22 +0100 (CET) From: Alexander Graf To: qemu-devel qemu-devel Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:14:07 +0100 Message-Id: <1331813662-15141-2-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.3.4 In-Reply-To: <1331813662-15141-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> References: <1331813662-15141-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 X-Received-From: 195.135.220.15 Cc: blauwirbel@gmail.com, Alex Barcelo , qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, aurelien@aurel32.net Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/16] Bad zero comparison for sas_ss_flags on powerpc X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@nongnu.org From: Alex Barcelo All architectures work the same way, and all check for sas_ss_flags == 0. The powerpc lines are wrong, and do the check the other way round (it's a qemu internal check, which is done wrong only for this architecture, it's more a typo than a bug). It's NOT ppc specific, it's POSIX standard (sigaltstack) and qemu internal. I have a test source that I will send in a follow-up (it's longer than I would have wished, I'm sure that a better test case can be written if needed) Signed-off-by: Alex Barcelo Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf --- linux-user/signal.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/linux-user/signal.c b/linux-user/signal.c index fca51e2..b1e139d 100644 --- a/linux-user/signal.c +++ b/linux-user/signal.c @@ -4118,7 +4118,7 @@ static target_ulong get_sigframe(struct target_sigaction *ka, oldsp = env->gpr[1]; if ((ka->sa_flags & TARGET_SA_ONSTACK) && - (sas_ss_flags(oldsp))) { + (sas_ss_flags(oldsp) == 0)) { oldsp = (target_sigaltstack_used.ss_sp + target_sigaltstack_used.ss_size); }