On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Dmitry Safonov <[email protected]> wrote: > 2016-04-25 22:20 GMT+03:00 Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>: >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Dmitry Safonov <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Introduce new flags that defines which ABI to use on creating sigframe. >>> Those flags one may set from the userspace, or kernel will set them >>> according to syscall, which sets handler for a signal. >>> So that will drop the dependency on TIF_IA32/TIF_X32 flags on syscall >>> deliver. >>> Those flags will be used only under CONFIG_COMPAT. >>> >>> The same way ARM uses sa_flags to differ in which mode deliver signal >>> for 26-bit applications (look at SA_THIRYTWO). >> >> Hmm. Do we want to make these user-visible at all, or should it be >> purely an in-kernel thing? > > Yes, I'll rework it to not expose to userspace. > I thought about it as a bonus when did it, but yeah, it's better > not reveal a new interfaces until they really needed. > But anyway, I did it for RFC, and I don't know what's better > for hidden flag: reuse sa_flags or invent in ksig a new hidden > member only for the kernel?
Either is fine with me. If you hide it in sa_flags, make sure to mask it off in the syscalls. -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC
