Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sun, 29 Nov 2020 03:28:23 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Walt Drummond <walt@drummond.us>
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, x86@kernel.org,
        hpa@zytor.com, brgerst@gmail.com, linux@dominikbrodowski.net,
        gustavoars@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/signals: Fix save/restore signal stack to correctly
 support sigset_t
Message-ID: <20201129032823.GA3579531@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20201119221132.1515696-1-walt@drummond.us>
 <20201128052317.GY3576660@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CADCN6nyGW0=QS=J+704n-mtAqTxgVrKZC=P8d01NZ_pjssptew@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADCN6nyGW0=QS=J+704n-mtAqTxgVrKZC=P8d01NZ_pjssptew@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 06:19:31PM -0800, Walt Drummond wrote:
> Thanks Al.  I want to understand the nuance, so please bear with me as I
> reason this out.   The cast in stone nature of this is due to both the need
> to keep userspace and kernel space in sync (ie, you'd have to coordinate
> libc and kernel changes super tightly to pull this off), and any change in
> the size of struct rt_sigframe would break backwards compatibility with
> older binaries, is that correct?

Pretty much so.  I would expect gdb and friends to be very unhappy about
that, for starters, along with a bunch of fun stuff like JVM, etc.

Ask the userland folks (libc, gdb, etc.) how would they feel about such
changes.  I'm fairly sure that it's _not_ going to be a matter of
changing _NSIG, rebuilding the kernel and living happily ever after.