linux-kernel - Re: Documenting sigaltstack SS

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 25 May 2017 12:17:07 +0300
From:   Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>
To:     "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Documenting sigaltstack SS_AUTODISRM

24.05.2017 14:09, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) пишет:
> One could do this I suppose, but I read POSIX differently from
> you and, more importantly, SS_ONSTACK breaks portability on
> numerous other systems and is a no-op on Linux. So, the Linux man
> page really should warn against its use in the strongest terms.
So how about instead of the strongest terms towards
the code's author, just explain that SS_ONSTACK is a
bit-value on some/many OSes, and as such, 0 is a
valid value to enable sas on them, plus all the other
values would give EINVAL?
No strongest terms will help w/o an explanation,
because people will keep looking for something that
suits as a missing SS_ENABLE.