From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51994C433E7 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:02:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2392920838 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:02:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726742AbgJLOCo (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 10:02:44 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:46658 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388681AbgJLNhp (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:37:45 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B528D6E; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 06:37:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from arm.com (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 961343F66B; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 06:37:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:37:39 +0100 From: Dave Martin To: Peter Collingbourne Cc: Linux ARM , Parisc List , Catalin Marinas , Kevin Brodsky , Oleg Nesterov , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Kostya Serebryany , "Eric W. Biederman" , Andrey Konovalov , David Spickett , Vincenzo Frascino , Will Deacon , Evgenii Stepanov , Richard Henderson Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 4/7] signal: define the SA_UNSUPPORTED bit in sa_flags Message-ID: <20201012133738.GD32292@arm.com> References: <20200908151306.GU6642@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 07:21:25PM -0700, Peter Collingbourne wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 8:13 AM Dave Martin wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:10:14PM -0700, Peter Collingbourne wrote: > > > > Nit: no statement of the chage being made (other than in the subject > > line). > > Will fix. > > > > This bit will never be supported in the uapi. The purpose of this flag > > > bit is to allow userspace to distinguish an old kernel that does not > > > clear unknown sa_flags bits from a kernel that supports every flag bit. > > > > > > In other words, if userspace finds that this bit remains set in > > > oldact.sa_flags, it means that the kernel cannot be trusted to have > > > cleared unknown flag bits from sa_flags, so no assumptions about flag > > > bit support can be made. > > > > This isn't quite right? After a single sigaction() call, oact will > > contain the sa_flags for the previously registered handler. So a > > second sigaction() call would be needed to find out the newly effective > > sa_flags. > > You're right, this is unclear to say the least. In v11 I will reword like so: > > In other words, if userspace does something like: > > act.sa_flags |= SA_UNSUPPORTED; > sigaction(SIGSEGV, &act, 0); > sigaction(SIGSEGV, 0, &oldact); > > and finds that SA_UNSUPPORTED remains set in oldact.sa_flags, it means > that the kernel cannot be trusted to have cleared unknown flag bits > from sa_flags, so no assumptions about flag bit support can be made. Seems reasonable. We'd need to make sure we're clear about which flags this applies for, though. The pre-existing flags can be assumed to be supported irrespective of whether SA_UNSUPPORTED remains set. Cheers ---Dave From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DE7CC43457 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:39:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBBD22076E for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:39:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="iaBkDCLJ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org EBBD22076E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=arElEtAAOm852xn5tV/uRcp7QcP65hIB3ZJTLxEwEL4=; b=iaBkDCLJ0LGvzrWIJDsdysYDN x0TdhxjZNhJthP40Av9Y3Sn3sTy5pCDmcM69rGOSNWcUPnnJz9J29c9B+0MHTKWERZ94mWwT2GvX2 MkOV8t3MhqT30FiOX1A1eJBNY7eFXQpq8woDUgCBiq38bYpweyFUw7d9eHOi39QBApKaF3Jlb7MyK aRCbkaqlWOkqkdocPxbQ1/k3iRki/afcUG9Zkwu0Sw30VNIkmYDKBD/N4LK7zykCmDADfI2nS9JeJ urUwdFE7Wz4Rblt5j3eirFnWVOdOQKiNLzz9y6bgQDYp0bG4Mrt73nbIyCR/13VAlcClxpdb+w9q9 10saavxEA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kRy1N-00013r-1t; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:37:49 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kRy1K-00013B-Tm for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:37:47 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B528D6E; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 06:37:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from arm.com (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 961343F66B; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 06:37:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:37:39 +0100 From: Dave Martin To: Peter Collingbourne Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 4/7] signal: define the SA_UNSUPPORTED bit in sa_flags Message-ID: <20201012133738.GD32292@arm.com> References: <20200908151306.GU6642@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20201012_093747_056002_A31AC003 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 23.92 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Parisc List , Catalin Marinas , Kevin Brodsky , Oleg Nesterov , Evgenii Stepanov , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Kostya Serebryany , "Eric W. Biederman" , Andrey Konovalov , David Spickett , Vincenzo Frascino , Will Deacon , Linux ARM , Richard Henderson Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 07:21:25PM -0700, Peter Collingbourne wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 8:13 AM Dave Martin wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:10:14PM -0700, Peter Collingbourne wrote: > > > > Nit: no statement of the chage being made (other than in the subject > > line). > > Will fix. > > > > This bit will never be supported in the uapi. The purpose of this flag > > > bit is to allow userspace to distinguish an old kernel that does not > > > clear unknown sa_flags bits from a kernel that supports every flag bit. > > > > > > In other words, if userspace finds that this bit remains set in > > > oldact.sa_flags, it means that the kernel cannot be trusted to have > > > cleared unknown flag bits from sa_flags, so no assumptions about flag > > > bit support can be made. > > > > This isn't quite right? After a single sigaction() call, oact will > > contain the sa_flags for the previously registered handler. So a > > second sigaction() call would be needed to find out the newly effective > > sa_flags. > > You're right, this is unclear to say the least. In v11 I will reword like so: > > In other words, if userspace does something like: > > act.sa_flags |= SA_UNSUPPORTED; > sigaction(SIGSEGV, &act, 0); > sigaction(SIGSEGV, 0, &oldact); > > and finds that SA_UNSUPPORTED remains set in oldact.sa_flags, it means > that the kernel cannot be trusted to have cleared unknown flag bits > from sa_flags, so no assumptions about flag bit support can be made. Seems reasonable. We'd need to make sure we're clear about which flags this applies for, though. The pre-existing flags can be assumed to be supported irrespective of whether SA_UNSUPPORTED remains set. Cheers ---Dave _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel