lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC 1/3] x86/signal: add SA_{X32,IA32}_ABI sa_flags
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2016-04-25 22:20 GMT+03:00 Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>:
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>>> Introduce new flags that defines which ABI to use on creating sigframe.
>>> Those flags one may set from the userspace, or kernel will set them
>>> according to syscall, which sets handler for a signal.
>>> So that will drop the dependency on TIF_IA32/TIF_X32 flags on syscall deliver.
>>> Those flags will be used only under CONFIG_COMPAT.
>>>
>>> The same way ARM uses sa_flags to differ in which mode deliver signal
>>> for 26-bit applications (look at SA_THIRYTWO).
>>
>> Hmm. Do we want to make these user-visible at all, or should it be
>> purely an in-kernel thing?
>
> Yes, I'll rework it to not expose to userspace.
> I thought about it as a bonus when did it, but yeah, it's better
> not reveal a new interfaces until they really needed.
> But anyway, I did it for RFC, and I don't know what's better
> for hidden flag: reuse sa_flags or invent in ksig a new hidden
> member only for the kernel?

Either is fine with me. If you hide it in sa_flags, make sure to mask
it off in the syscalls.

--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-04-25 23:01    [W:1.333 / U:0.944 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site