Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 3 Nov 2018 00:07:52 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Jethro Beekman <jethro@fortanix.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>, nhorman@redhat.com,
        npmccallum@redhat.com, "Ayoun, Serge" <serge.ayoun@intel.com>,
        shay.katz-zamir@intel.com, linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: RFC: userspace exception fixups
Message-ID: <20181102220752.GA24373@linux.intel.com>
References: <CALCETrWdpoDkbZjkucKL91GWpDPG9p=VqYrULade2pFDR7S=GQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrWdpoDkbZjkucKL91GWpDPG9p=VqYrULade2pFDR7S=GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 10:53:40AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> If a handler is registered, then, if a synchronous exception happens
> (page fault, etc), the kernel would set up an exception frame as usual
> but, rather than checking for signal handlers, it would just call the
> registered handler.  That handler is expected to either handle the
> exception entirely on its own or to call one of two new syscalls to
> ask for normal signal delivery or to ask to retry the faulting
> instruction.

Why the syscalls are required? Couldn't the handler have just a return
value to indicate the appropriate action?

Another thing that I'm wondering is that what if a signal occurs inside
the exception handler?

/Jarkko