Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:15:44 +0000 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: sigaltstack fun |
| |
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:10:02AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:27:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > > Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> > > > > Applied, thanks. > > Hmm... There's something odd going on with {rt_,}sigaction on sparc - > we *do* have sa_restorer in struct sigaction and struct old_sigaction, > but it's not used for anything whatsoever. There's also a separately > passed restorer pointer for rt_sigaction() and *that* is used instead, > but not reported via *oact. > > What's the reason for that weirdness? I understand why we do that on > alpha (we have no sa_restorer in struct sigaction we'd inherited from > OSF/1), but sparc always had perfectly normal sigaction->sa_restorer > field all along - even for old sigaction(2)...
PS: speaking of weirdness, what's the reason for sparc and ppc (and nothing else) expecting the first argument of sigaction(2) to be minus signal number? ABI archaeology is fun...
| |