[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55CCE38C.9030107@list.ru>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 21:35:56 +0300
From: Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Stas Sergeev <stsp@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [regression] x86/signal/64: Fix SS handling for signals delivered
to 64-bit programs breaks dosemu
13.08.2015 21:25, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru> wrote:
>
>> It is more about selecting the right field for such a flag.
>> You can select the right field now, and introduce some flag
>> to it, like SIG_SAVE_SS or whatever. This will fix a regression.
>> Then, when the TLS time will code, you'll just add SIG_SAVE_FS
>> flag to the same field, so that they can be ORed.
> Oh.
>
> I think the field is obvious: uc_flags.
But Andy, I don't understand...
If we are talking about the field that will in the future also
cover TLS, how can this be uc_flags? By using uc_flags,
how will you control the restoring of FS on signal delivery?
> I also thing that all of the
> saving should happen automatically, since I still don't see how
> anything will break if the kernel starts saving more things. It's the
> restore part that's problematic.
OK, so SIG_RESTORE_SS and SIG_RESTORE_FS.
How can those be the part of uc_flags, if we want to
control the restoring _on a signal delivery_?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists