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
[So, things fell on the floor, a while back.]

On 05/25/2017 11:17 AM, Stas Sergeev wrote:
> 24.05.2017 14:09, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) пишет:
>> One could do this I suppose, but I read POSIX differently from
>> you and, more importantly, SS_ONSTACK breaks portability on
>> numerous other systems and is a no-op on Linux. So, the Linux man
>> page really should warn against its use in the strongest terms.
> So how about instead of the strongest terms towards
> the code's author, just explain that SS_ONSTACK is a
> bit-value on some/many OSes, and as such, 0 is a
> valid value to enable sas on them, plus all the other
> values would give EINVAL?
> No strongest terms will help w/o an explanation,
> because people will keep looking for something that
> suits as a missing SS_ENABLE.

Fair enough. I've removed the statement in the manual page
about "confusion". By now the page says:

BUGS
In the lead up to the release of the Linux 2.4 kernel, a change
was made to allow sigaltstack() to accept SS_ONSTACK in
ss.ss_flags, which results in behavior that is the same as when
ss_flags is 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 this flag 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.

Cheers,

Michael

--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-30 11:05    [W:0.113 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site