From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752722AbcAGTK2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 7 Jan 2016 14:10:28 -0500
Received: from smtp29.i.mail.ru ([94.100.177.89]:51898 "EHLO smtp29.i.mail.ru"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750890AbcAGTK1 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 7 Jan 2016 14:10:27 -0500
Subject: Re: sigaltstack breaks swapcontext()
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
References: <568D36A1.1030706@list.ru>
 <CALCETrX+nvBy5JTOsgz-gR9OaT2C7C_Gi-grt_rUJmkXuwX6QQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <568D5FFE.3040000@list.ru>
 <CALCETrWqeo5=Dgj5g3UghiRgv2LSUWHMQiUuj2sqey38R1BZpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <568D6B81.2040704@list.ru>
 <CALCETrUp4FyR=v9jMSixeYb_6zYRtSQPzCvf328oOkb2DctjPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <568E8540.1060609@list.ru>
 <CALCETrWKCOBj12cv7LVPOrATKG9UqC1kJbP5SjCYFoXXw=qyLw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
From: Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru>
Message-ID: <568EB81D.9030209@list.ru>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 22:10:21 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrWKCOBj12cv7LVPOrATKG9UqC1kJbP5SjCYFoXXw=qyLw@mail.gmail.com>
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: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

07.01.2016 20:23, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
> 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?
I mean, if we also consistently return SA_ONSTACK even
after SS_DISABLE. This will require kernel to save the
ss_flags separately, and not to use "if (ss_size)" checks.
Of course if we don't want to return SA_ONSTACK, we
should just remove EPERM as I don't think it serves any
other purpose than that.