22.05.2017 23:38, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) пишет:
Stas,
I have attempted to document the SS_AUTODISARM feature that you added
in Linux 4.7.
Could you please take a look at the SS_AUTODISARM pieces in the
sigaltstack() man page below? There is also one FIXME that I would
like help with.
It seems to me that the API has become rather odd now. It is no longer
possible to simply check whether code is executing on an alternative
stack by using
sigaltstack(NULL, &old_ss);
if (old_ss.ss_flags & SS_ONSTACK)
You mean, if SS_AUTODISARM was previously used, right?
Because I don't think we broke the existing code, or did we?
I can vaguely recall that I was submitting the patches
that were returning SS_ONSTACK even when SS_AUTODISARM
was used, but they were considered too complex.
This is possible to implement, but the agreement was
that it is not a big deal.
ss.ss_flags
This field contains either 0, or the following flag:
Is this correct?
AFAIK it can be SS_DISABLE too, and posix seems to allow any
other value for enable, which can be (on linux) SS_ONSTACK,
not only 0.
And SS_AUTODISARM can be ORed with the value.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│FIXME │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│Was it intended that one can set up a different │
│alternative signal stack in this scenario? (In pass‐ │
│ing, if one does this, the sigaltstack(NULL, │
│&old_ss) now returns old_ss.ss_flags==SS_AUTODISARM │
│rather than old_ss.ss_flags==SS_DISABLE. The API │
│design here seems confusing... │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
My memory may be wrong here, but I think setting
up another alt stack was not supposed because the
previous settings would be restored upon sighandler
return. AFAIK I was trying to make up a proposal to
get such attempts explicitly blocked rather than
silently ignored, but again the simplicity was chosen.
SS_AUTODISARM
The alternate signal stack has been marked to be
autodisarmed as described above.
Initially this flag was supposed to be ORed with
the old values. Your descrition is correct, but if
more bit flags are added, this may became a
problem, as you are always treating it as a separate
value, not a bit flag.
