Re: [RFC 1/3] x86/signal: add SA_{X32,IA32}_ABI sa_flags

[Dmitry Safonov]

2016-04-25 22:20 GMT+03:00 Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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?