Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Lutomirski <> | Date | Thu, 7 Jan 2016 09:23:01 -0800 | Subject | Re: sigaltstack breaks swapcontext() |
| |
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> wrote: > 06.01.2016 22:53, Andy Lutomirski пишет: >> >> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> wrote: >>> >>> Exactly. >>> Do you think this can be ignored? >>> A man page should then be corrected with EPERM and the >>> above note removed, right? >>> >> I think it can be ignored. I'd go the SS_FORCE route, though, to >> maintain POSIX compliance. > > I think such a flag would be a wrong thing to do. > Allowing only SS_DISABLE (without any new flags) keeps > you still "compatible with posix", and anything beyond > SS_DISABLE in a sighandler is not needed. > > So I think we only have the following options: > 1. Remove the check and forget (if anything, glibc can > add the EPERM check to stay compatible with crap). > 2. Allow only SS_DISABLE. This will mean a large patch, > touching all arches, but the bonus is the compatibility > with posix, that no one needs in this particular case.
Why does allowing SS_DISABLE require touching all arches?
--Andy
-- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC
| |