On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 01:57:42PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
Don't bother testing yet. I'm waffling between trying something like
this and adding SA_SAVE_SS. I have partially written patches for the
latter.
ok, ping me if anything
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 01:18:50PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
This adds two new uc_flags flags. UC_SAVED_SS will be set for all
64-bit signals (including x32). It indicates that the saved SS field
is valid and that the kernel understands UC_RESTORE_SS.
The kernel will *not* set
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov gorcu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 01:18:50PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
This adds two new uc_flags flags. UC_SAVED_SS will be set for all
64-bit signals (including x32). It indicates that the saved SS field
is valid and that
This adds two new uc_flags flags. UC_SAVED_SS will be set for all
64-bit signals (including x32). It indicates that the saved SS field
is valid and that the kernel understands UC_RESTORE_SS.
The kernel will *not* set UC_RESTORE_SS. User signal handlers can
set UC_RESTORE_SS themselves to
