From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753630AbbHMTFa (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:05:30 -0400 Received: from smtp50.i.mail.ru ([94.100.177.110]:49123 "EHLO smtp50.i.mail.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752767AbbHMTF3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:05:29 -0400 Subject: Re: [regression] x86/signal/64: Fix SS handling for signals delivered to 64-bit programs breaks dosemu To: Andy Lutomirski , Linus Torvalds References: <55CA90B4.2010205@list.ru> <55CCD921.4040301@list.ru> Cc: Linux kernel From: Stas Sergeev Message-ID: <55CCEA73.1030403@list.ru> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 22:05:23 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mras: Ok Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 13.08.2015 21:41, Andy Lutomirski пишет: > Stas: I think uc_flags is okay. We don't currently read it during > sigreturn, but I see no reason that we can't start reading it. Andy, we definitely have some communication discontinuity here. :) The point is not sigreturn. If we are talking about the flags that will in the future control also TLS, how would you limit it to sigreturn()? It should control the restoring of FS _on signal delivery_, not only on sigreturn()! So how uc_flags can be used for this at all?