Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964915AbcDYUeX (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Apr 2016 16:34:23 -0400 Received: from mail-qg0-f41.google.com ([209.85.192.41]:35565 "EHLO mail-qg0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933411AbcDYUeW (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Apr 2016 16:34:22 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1461600763-3534-1-git-send-email-dsafonov@virtuozzo.com> From: Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 23:34:01 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] x86/signal: add SA_{X32,IA32}_ABI sa_flags To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Dmitry Safonov , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andy Lutomirski , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , X86 ML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1035 Lines: 20 2016-04-25 22:20 GMT+03:00 Andy Lutomirski : > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Dmitry Safonov 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?