Re: [PATCH 1/4] signals/sigaltstack: If SS_AUTODISARM, bypass on_sig_stack

2016-05-14 Thread Andy Lutomirski
On May 14, 2016 4:18 AM, "Stas Sergeev" wrote: > > 14.05.2016 07:18, Andy Lutomirski пишет: > >> On May 8, 2016 7:05 PM, "Stas Sergeev" wrote: >>> >>> 09.05.2016 04:32, Andy Lutomirski пишет: >>> On May 7, 2016 7:38 AM, "Stas Sergeev" wrote: > > 03.05.2016 20:31, Andy Lutomirski пиш

Re: [PATCH 1/4] signals/sigaltstack: If SS_AUTODISARM, bypass on_sig_stack

2016-05-14 Thread Stas Sergeev
14.05.2016 07:18, Andy Lutomirski пишет: On May 8, 2016 7:05 PM, "Stas Sergeev" wrote: 09.05.2016 04:32, Andy Lutomirski пишет: On May 7, 2016 7:38 AM, "Stas Sergeev" wrote: 03.05.2016 20:31, Andy Lutomirski пишет: If a signal stack is set up with SS_AUTODISARM, then the kernel inherently

Re: [PATCH 1/4] signals/sigaltstack: If SS_AUTODISARM, bypass on_sig_stack

2016-05-13 Thread Andy Lutomirski
On May 8, 2016 7:05 PM, "Stas Sergeev" wrote: > > 09.05.2016 04:32, Andy Lutomirski пишет: > >> On May 7, 2016 7:38 AM, "Stas Sergeev" wrote: >>> >>> 03.05.2016 20:31, Andy Lutomirski пишет: >>> If a signal stack is set up with SS_AUTODISARM, then the kernel inherently avoids incorrectl

Re: [PATCH 1/4] signals/sigaltstack: If SS_AUTODISARM, bypass on_sig_stack

2016-05-08 Thread Stas Sergeev
09.05.2016 04:32, Andy Lutomirski пишет: On May 7, 2016 7:38 AM, "Stas Sergeev" wrote: 03.05.2016 20:31, Andy Lutomirski пишет: If a signal stack is set up with SS_AUTODISARM, then the kernel inherently avoids incorrectly resetting the signal stack if signals recurse: the signal stack will be

Re: [PATCH 1/4] signals/sigaltstack: If SS_AUTODISARM, bypass on_sig_stack

2016-05-08 Thread Andy Lutomirski
On May 7, 2016 7:38 AM, "Stas Sergeev" wrote: > > 03.05.2016 20:31, Andy Lutomirski пишет: > >> If a signal stack is set up with SS_AUTODISARM, then the kernel >> inherently avoids incorrectly resetting the signal stack if signals >> recurse: the signal stack will be reset on the first signal >> d

Re: [PATCH 1/4] signals/sigaltstack: If SS_AUTODISARM, bypass on_sig_stack

2016-05-07 Thread Stas Sergeev
03.05.2016 20:31, Andy Lutomirski пишет: If a signal stack is set up with SS_AUTODISARM, then the kernel inherently avoids incorrectly resetting the signal stack if signals recurse: the signal stack will be reset on the first signal delivery. This means that we don't need check the stack pointer

Re: [PATCH 1/4] signals/sigaltstack: If SS_AUTODISARM, bypass on_sig_stack

2016-05-04 Thread Andy Lutomirski
On May 3, 2016 11:32 PM, "Ingo Molnar" wrote: > > > * Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > If a signal stack is set up with SS_AUTODISARM, then the kernel > > inherently avoids incorrectly resetting the signal stack if signals > > recurse: the signal stack will be reset on the first signal > > delivery.

Re: [PATCH 1/4] signals/sigaltstack: If SS_AUTODISARM, bypass on_sig_stack

2016-05-03 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Andy Lutomirski wrote: > If a signal stack is set up with SS_AUTODISARM, then the kernel > inherently avoids incorrectly resetting the signal stack if signals > recurse: the signal stack will be reset on the first signal > delivery. This means that we don't need check the stack pointer > when

[PATCH 1/4] signals/sigaltstack: If SS_AUTODISARM, bypass on_sig_stack

2016-05-03 Thread Andy Lutomirski
If a signal stack is set up with SS_AUTODISARM, then the kernel inherently avoids incorrectly resetting the signal stack if signals recurse: the signal stack will be reset on the first signal delivery. This means that we don't need check the stack pointer when delivering signals if SS_AUTODISARM i