From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 3/3] x86/signal/64: Add explicit controls for
 sigcontext SS handling
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 23:55:18 +0300
Message-ID: <20150814205518.GD2129@uranus>
References: <cover.1439496828.git.luto@kernel.org>
 <ea81981de89c22262e7b9324144f0055cff8b955.1439496828.git.luto@kernel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru>, x86@kernel.org,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>,
	kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-lb0-f178.google.com ([209.85.217.178]:35768 "EHLO
	mail-lb0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750940AbbHNUzW (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:55:22 -0400
Received: by lbcbn3 with SMTP id bn3so51926409lbc.2
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 13:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ea81981de89c22262e7b9324144f0055cff8b955.1439496828.git.luto@kernel.org>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 01:18:50PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> This adds two new uc_flags flags.  UC_SAVED_SS will be set for all
> 64-bit signals (including x32).  It indicates that the saved SS field
> is valid and that the kernel understands UC_RESTORE_SS.
> 
> The kernel will *not* set UC_RESTORE_SS.  User signal handlers can
> set UC_RESTORE_SS themselves to indicate that sigreturn should
> restore SS from the sigcontext.
> 
> 64-bit programs that use segmentation are encouraged to check
> UC_SAVED_SS and set UC_RESTORE_SS in their signal handlers.  This is
> the only straightforward way to cause sigreturn to restore SS.  (The
> only non-test program that I know of that uses segmentation in a
> 64-bit binary is DOSEMU, and DOSEMU currently uses a nasty
> trampoline to work around the lack of this mechanism in old kernels.
> It could detect UC_RESTORE_SS and use it to avoid needing a
> trampoline.
> 
> Cc: Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
> Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>

Looks reasonable to me. Andy, Linus, what the final conclusion --
are we about to introduce this flag or simply continue with
revert? Should I test this one? (from the code I don't excpect it
break criu anyhow but still).