On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 06:56:54 -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> However, as I was adding an #ifdef conditional to the sigcontext
> handling in the new unified __sigaction14_sigtramp.c (because new
> architectures added after ?siginfo? support was added never really
> needed it, and didn?t define a
> On Oct 26, 2021, at 8:27 AM, Valery Ushakov wrote:
>
> I'm not sure why we left the sigcontext version in the tree. I would
> guess for reference only, so it doesn't really need any fixing, as far
> as I understand.
Presumably it was to keep old binaries that used the sigcontext style
> On Oct 26, 2021, at 6:56 AM, Jason Thorpe wrote:
>
> Obviously, the practical impact of this is nil, since no one apparently
> noticed (and I guess we didn’t break any programs that people were using). We
> haven’t documented that style of handler for a VERY long time but presumably
> the
Hey folks —
I was looking into the request for a libc function that determined if a program
counter was inside a signal trampoline (see
https://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2021/10/15/msg027703.html), and the
first thing I decided to do as part of this was unify all of the
Date:Tue, 26 Oct 2021 11:13:00 -0700
From:Jason Thorpe
Message-ID: <474c830e-74d0-4234-b186-fe92ff97b...@me.com>
| I mean, I could certainly fix it
I think Christos already did.
kre
Date:Tue, 26 Oct 2021 18:27:20 +0300
From:Valery Ushakov
Message-ID:
| OTOH the old
| *binaries* (using old dynamic libc, or linked with old static libc)
| still need the kernel support.
I think the point is that the "old dynamic libc" is the current libc,
> On Oct 26, 2021, at 11:07 AM, Robert Elz wrote:
>
>Date:Tue, 26 Oct 2021 18:27:20 +0300
>From:Valery Ushakov
>Message-ID:
>
> | OTOH the old
> | *binaries* (using old dynamic libc, or linked with old static libc)
> | still need the kernel support.
>
> I
In article <141d1bec-0f6d-4bb8-8b44-aba98806c...@me.com>,
Jason Thorpe wrote:
>
>> On Oct 26, 2021, at 6:56 AM, Jason Thorpe wrote:
>>
>> Obviously, the practical impact of this is nil, since no one apparently
>noticed (and I guess we didnât break any programs that people were
>using). We
