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]

Message-ID: <d6974f33-cfdb-fdbc-8d8a-1b3dc43d6ee0@list.ru>
Date:   Mon, 30 Oct 2017 13:58:11 +0300
From:   Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>
To:     "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        wharms@....de
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

30.10.2017 13:50, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) пишет:
> I see what you mean. The point is back then that SS_ONSTACK was
> the only flag that could (on Linux) be specified in ss.ss_flags,
> so that "SS_ONSTACK | SOMETHING_FLAG" was a nonexistent case.
> These days, it's possible to specify the new SS_AUTODISARM
> flag in ss.ss_flags, which I think is why you are doubtful
> about the new page text. How about this, as a tightened-up
> version:
>
>      BUGS
>         In Linux 2.2 and earlier, the only flag that could be specified in
>         ss.sa_flags  was SS_DISABLE.  In the lead up to the release of the
>         Linux 2.4 kernel, a change was  made  to  allow  sigaltstack()  to
>         allow   ss.ss_flags==SS_ONSTACK   with   the   same   meaning   as
>         ss.ss_flags==0 (i.e., the inclusion of SS_ONSTACK  in  ss.ss_flags
>         is  a no-op).  On other implementations, and according to POSIX.1,
>         SS_ONSTACK appears only as a reported flag in old_ss.ss_flags.  On
>         Linux, there is no need ever to specify SS_ONSTACK in ss.ss_flags,
>         and indeed doing so should be avoided on portability grounds: var‐
>         ious  other  systems  give  an error if SS_ONSTACK is specified in
>         ss.ss_flags.
>
And after all these amendments it seems to
no longer belong to BUGS section but to NOTES.