Stas, I probably missed something, but I don't understand your concerns,
On 02/01, Stas Sergeev 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.
Nothing? restore_sigaltstack() should work as expected?
> >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();
Yes, or
sigaltstack({ DISABLE | FORCE}, &old_ss);
swapcontext();
sigaltstack(&old_ss, NULL);
rt_sigreturn();
and if you are going to return from sighandler you do not even need the 2nd
sigaltstack(), you can rely on sigreturn.
> What's at the end? Do we want a surprise for the user
> that he's new_sas got ignored?
Can't understand.... do you mean "set up new_sas" will be ignored because
rt_sigreturn() does restore_sigaltstack() ? I see no problem here...
Oleg.
--
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
