01.02.2016 21:28, Andy Lutomirski пишет:

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Stas Sergeev [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

01.02.2016 21:04, Oleg Nesterov пишет:

quoted

Yes, and SS_FORCE means "I know what I do", looks very simple.

But to me its not because I don't know what to do with
uc_stack after SS_FORCE is applied.

quoted

I won't argue, but to me it would be better to keep this EPERM if !force.
Just because we should avoid the incompatible changes if possible.

Ok then. Lets implement SS_FORCE.
What semantic should it have wrt uc_stack?

sigaltstack(SS_DISABLE | SS_FORCE);
swapcontext();
sigaltstack(set up new_sas);
rt_sigreturn();

What's at the end? Do we want a surprise for the user
that he's new_sas got ignored?

More detail please.  What context are you returning to with
rt_sigreturn?  What's in uc_stack?

Whatever was saved there by save_altstack_ex() I guess.
Which is the sas params on signal entry.
And I am returning to the interrupted user context.
I am using SA_SIGINFO with sigaction().
This is actually what I was asking you already yeaterday.
I don't think SS_FORCE can play nicely with uc_stack and
you haven't clarified that part, so lets try again.

Presumably we should continue to honor uc_stack in rt_sigreturn.

In this case, the above sigaltstack(set up new_sas) just
gets ignored. Are we allright with that? If so, I can code
up the patch. Whatever. :)

   I'm
less clear on whether we should have an implicit SS_FORCE when
restoring uc_stack.

This is obscure and is likely outside of the scope of the
problem at hands.

   I'm also not clear on why uc_stack exists in the
first place.

If I were designing this from scratch, I'd have signal delivery for an
SA_ONSTACK signal save away the altstack information and clear it so
that nested signals work without checking sp during signal delivery.

How would you then evaluate oss->ss_flags?