[Bug libc/22564] Enhance Safety check

["adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22564

Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot o
                   |                            |rg

--- Comment #2 from Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org> ---
I am not really understanding the issue you are seeing. The cancellation
handler (sigcancel_handler) is explicit enabled with SA_SIGINFO so kernel
should provide a correct and valid siginfo_t as second argument for signal
handler.  And as least si_signo, si_errno, and si_code should be defined for
all signals.

Although siginfo_t is implemented in Linux as an union, I see no point in
actually change the order of tests.  Ideally the si_pid should be manipulated
only for certain types of signals, so I think the guard for sig == SIGCANCEL is
correct here.

I think the changes you are proposing are giving you more information just by
change, do you have a testcase that trigger this issue?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.