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?
