From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: sigaltstack fun Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:15:44 +0000 Message-ID: <20121126051544.GD4939@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20121119011013.GJ16916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20121118.203005.151867624663051294.davem@davemloft.net> <20121119023507.GK16916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20121118.222724.1495808364736017374.davem@davemloft.net> <20121126051002.GB4939@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:42665 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751309Ab2KZFPq (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2012 00:15:46 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121126051002.GB4939@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: David Miller Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, monstr@monstr.eu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:10:02AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:27:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > > Signed-off-by: Al Viro > > > > Applied, thanks. > > Hmm... There's something odd going on with {rt_,}sigaction on sparc - > we *do* have sa_restorer in struct sigaction and struct old_sigaction, > but it's not used for anything whatsoever. There's also a separately > passed restorer pointer for rt_sigaction() and *that* is used instead, > but not reported via *oact. > > What's the reason for that weirdness? I understand why we do that on > alpha (we have no sa_restorer in struct sigaction we'd inherited from > OSF/1), but sparc always had perfectly normal sigaction->sa_restorer > field all along - even for old sigaction(2)... PS: speaking of weirdness, what's the reason for sparc and ppc (and nothing else) expecting the first argument of sigaction(2) to be minus signal number? ABI archaeology is fun...