Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Documenting sigaltstack SS_AUTODISRM | From | Stas Sergeev <> | Date | Mon, 30 Oct 2017 13:58:11 +0300 |
| |
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.
| |