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 S933224AbcAaSEK (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 31 Jan 2016 13:04:10 -0500
Received: from smtp24.mail.ru ([94.100.181.179]:45356 "EHLO smtp24.mail.ru"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S932825AbcAaSEI (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 31 Jan 2016 13:04:08 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: signal: unify the sigaltstack check with other
 arches
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
References: <56AE3369.2090709@list.ru> <56AE3524.1030403@list.ru>
 <CALCETrUzOqVSHcGhLOTwOH-bA-BV0ab0DVHgS0RRJtW-FAq-3g@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
From: Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru>
Message-ID: <56AE4C85.1040505@list.ru>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 21:03:49 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrUzOqVSHcGhLOTwOH-bA-BV0ab0DVHgS0RRJtW-FAq-3g@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

31.01.2016 19:58, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> wrote:
>> Currently x86's get_sigframe() checks for "current->sas_ss_size"
>> to determine whether there is a need to switch to sigaltstack.
>> The common practice used by all other arches is to check for
>> sas_ss_flags(sp) == 0
>>
>> This patch makes the code consistent with other arches and also
>> allows for the further sigaltstack improvements within this patch serie.
> You've duplicate part of the check.  That whole block is already
> checking !sigstack.  Can you remove that now?
OK.