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;
Cc:     mtk.manpages@gmail.com, linux-man <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Documenting sigaltstack SS_AUTODISRM
To:     Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru>
References: <CAKgNAkjw_OBxcL627V9xMrKUei69hwjVCr6sbHbG2riBe7VVYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <08467ae1-7187-3b2a-9a78-8af0c10bf816@list.ru>
 <3907bc2a-0645-8d93-6ee5-3f99874e7022@gmail.com>
 <32d95303-5839-9279-a1d3-a06f34e3484e@list.ru>
 <CAKgNAkgw6P5RAsA2RSFJX57b=DHM=eNZ+ZOoagcO3ydSHzBcQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <50de8f3b-8a1e-df50-b5dd-d1b74cb77fad@list.ru>
 <026308b5-4e92-4439-1eb2-82b67584d548@gmail.com>
 <3a4f9f3e-fc33-cf98-2322-27087664813f@list.ru>
From:   "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a5565692-7f23-d236-3b01-142088310741@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Oct 2017 11:04:58 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3a4f9f3e-fc33-cf98-2322-27087664813f@list.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

[So, things fell on the floor, a while back.]

On 05/25/2017 11:17 AM, Stas Sergeev wrote:
> 24.05.2017 14:09, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) пишет:
>> One could do this I suppose, but I read POSIX differently from
>> you and, more importantly, SS_ONSTACK breaks portability on
>> numerous other systems and is a no-op on Linux. So, the Linux man
>> page really should warn against its use in the strongest terms.
> So how about instead of the strongest terms towards
> the code's author, just explain that SS_ONSTACK is a
> bit-value on some/many OSes, and as such, 0 is a
> valid value to enable sas on them, plus all the other
> values would give EINVAL?
> No strongest terms will help w/o an explanation,
> because people will keep looking for something that
> suits as a missing SS_ENABLE.

Fair enough. I've removed the statement in the manual page
about "confusion". By now the page says:

    BUGS
       In the lead up to the release of the Linux 2.4  kernel,  a  change
       was   made   to   allow  sigaltstack()  to  accept  SS_ONSTACK  in
       ss.ss_flags, which results in behavior that is the  same  as  when
       ss_flags is 0 (i.e., the inclusion of SS_ONSTACK in ss.ss_flags is
       a no-op).  On other implementations,  and  according  to  POSIX.1,
       SS_ONSTACK appears only as a reported flag in old_ss.ss_flags.  On
       Linux, there is no need ever to specify this flag in  ss.ss_flags,
       and indeed doing so should be avoided on portability grounds: var‐
       ious other systems give an error if  SS_ONSTACK  is  specified  in
       ss.ss_flags.

Cheers,

Michael

-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/

From 1582678540934340950@xxx Mon Oct 30 10:37:55 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1582678540934340950
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums