lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: 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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-01-07 19:01    [W:0.881 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site