Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler | From | Stas Sergeev <> | Date | Mon, 1 Feb 2016 21:16:02 +0300 |
| |
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.
> 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();
What's at the end? Do we want a surprise for the user that he's new_sas got ignored?
| |