lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Documenting sigaltstack SS_AUTODISRM
From
Date
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.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-30 12:44    [W:0.156 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site