[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWMJ-2xovNnPgsKZtmBWZpqBERCTzne2L81x0tcm0BhbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 14:22:24 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@....de>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
"Amanieu d'Antras" <amanieu@...il.com>,
Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Stas Sergeev <stsp@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sigaltstack: implement SS_AUTODISARM flag
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru> wrote:
> This patch implements the SS_AUTODISARM flag that can be ORed with
> SS_ONSTACK when forming ss_flags.
> When this flag is set, sigaltstack will be disabled when entering
> the signal handler; more precisely, after saving sas to uc_stack.
> When leaving the signal handler, the sigaltstack is restored by
> uc_stack.
> When this flag is used, it is safe to switch from sighandler with
> swapcontext(). Without this flag, the subsequent signal will corrupt
> the state of the switched-away sighandler.
>
This looks reasonable to me with one exception: how does a user
program detect the presence of this feature? Anyone else have any
thoughts?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists