01.02.2016 21:28, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@xxxxxxx> wrote:
01.02.2016 21:04, Oleg Nesterov пишет:
Yes, and SS_FORCE means "I know what I do", looks very simple.
But to me its not because I don't know what to do with
uc_stack after SS_FORCE is applied.
I won't argue, but to me it would be better to keep this EPERM if !force.
Just because we should avoid the incompatible changes if possible.
Ok then. Lets implement SS_FORCE.
What semantic should it have wrt uc_stack?
sigaltstack(SS_DISABLE | SS_FORCE);
swapcontext();
sigaltstack(set up new_sas);
rt_sigreturn();
What's at the end? Do we want a surprise for the user
that he's new_sas got ignored?
More detail please. What context are you returning to with
rt_sigreturn? What's in uc_stack?
Whatever was saved there by save_altstack_ex() I guess.
Which is the sas params on signal entry.
And I am returning to the interrupted user context.
I am using SA_SIGINFO with sigaction().
This is actually what I was asking you already yeaterday.
I don't think SS_FORCE can play nicely with uc_stack and
you haven't clarified that part, so lets try again.
Presumably we should continue to honor uc_stack in rt_sigreturn.
In this case, the above sigaltstack(set up new_sas) just
gets ignored. Are we allright with that? If so, I can code
up the patch. Whatever. :)
I'm
less clear on whether we should have an implicit SS_FORCE when
restoring uc_stack.
This is obscure and is likely outside of the scope of the
problem at hands.
I'm also not clear on why uc_stack exists in the
first place.
If I were designing this from scratch, I'd have signal delivery for an
SA_ONSTACK signal save away the altstack information and clear it so
that nested signals work without checking sp during signal delivery.
How would you then evaluate oss->ss_flags?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
