On 02/01, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

quoted

+        onsigstack = on_sig_stack(sp);
+        if (ss_size == 0) {
+            switch (ss_flags) {
+            case 0:
+                error = -EPERM;
+                if (onsigstack)
+                    goto out;
+                current->sas_ss_sp = 0;
+                current->sas_ss_size = 0;
+                current->sas_ss_flags = SS_DISABLE;
+                break;
+            case SS_ONSTACK:
+                /* re-enable previously disabled sas */
+                error = -EINVAL;
+                if (current->sas_ss_size == 0)
+                    goto out;
+                break;
+            default:
+                break;
+            }

and iiuc the "default" case allows you to write SS_DISABLE into ->sas_ss_flags
even if on_sig_stack().

So the sequence is

	// running on alt stack

	sigaltstack(SS_DISABLE);

	temporary_run_on_another_stack();

	sigaltstack(SS_ONSTACK);

and SS_DISABLE saves us from another SA_ONSTACK signal, right?

But afaics it can only help after we change the stack. Suppose that SA_ONSTACK signal
comess before temporary_run_on_another_stack(). get_sigframe() should be fine after
your changes (afaics), it won't pick the alt stack after SS_DISABLE.

However, unless I missed something save_altstack_ex() will record SS_ONSTACK in
uc_stack->ss_flags, and after return from signal handler restore_altstack() will
enable alt stack again?

OK, I didn't notice you modified save_altstack_ex() to use ->sas_ss_flags instead
of sas_ss_flags()... still doesn't look right, in this case restore_altstack() will
not restore sas_ss_size/sas_ss_sp and they can be changed by signal handler.

Anyway, whatever I missed I agree with Andy, SS_FORCE looks simpler and better to me.

Oleg.