Re: missing bit from signal patches

[Peter Wächtler]

Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Roman,
> 
> On Thu, 30 May 2002 14:46:20 +0200 (CEST) Roman Zippel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>On Thu, 30 May 2002, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Is the following a more ugly hack than yours?
>>>
>>Yes. :)
>>The problem is copy_siginfo(), which wants to access struct siginfo.
>>Copy the m68k version of siginfo.h and try to compile that.
>>
> 
> OK, sorry, brain fart :-)
> 
> It seems that is an architecture defines its own siginfo_t then it must
> also define its own copy_siginfo function (for now anyway).
> 
> Try this ...
> 

Why is that done so complicated?
Why not just copy the struct over?
When the kernel generates the signal, I hope the mem is zeroed
and we copy it to user. When a user sends a signal, you want to
prevent sending of arbitrary data? Why is that not done where
the permission check happens?

What do I miss?