On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 12:49:53PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 08:51:13AM -0800, enh wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2023 at 3:54 PM Rich Felker wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 10:44:56AM -0800, enh wrote: > > > > oops, never actually sent the patch. attached... > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:31 AM Khem Raj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:19 AM Rich Felker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 07:44:23AM -0800, enh wrote: > > > > > > > arch/riscv64/bits/signal.h has contained a definition for SA_RESTORER since > > > > > > > the initial commit, but i think that's just copy & paste from whichever > > > > > > > architecture the rv64 headers were based on? the linux kernel itself > > > > > > > doesn't have SA_RESTORER for rv64, unless i'm missing something? > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect this is just a mistake. Have you seen any ill effects from > > > > > > it? If riscv folks can confirm it's wrong, I'll remove it. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah I think it should be removed. Perhaps mips is in same boat. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rich > > > > > > > From 6413de6d9f785c98e5bc0cf40be947f1169d2fd7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > > From: Elliott Hughes > > > > Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 10:42:55 -0800 > > > > Subject: [PATCH] risc-v does not have SA_RESTORER. > > > > > > > > The kernel's include/uapi/asm-generic/signal-defs.h explicitly calls > > > > this out as obsolete. New architectures like risc-v do not define it. > > > > --- > > > > arch/riscv64/bits/signal.h | 1 - > > > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv64/bits/signal.h b/arch/riscv64/bits/signal.h > > > > index 287367db..fd6157a3 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/riscv64/bits/signal.h > > > > +++ b/arch/riscv64/bits/signal.h > > > > @@ -76,7 +76,6 @@ typedef struct __ucontext > > > > #define SA_RESTART 0x10000000 > > > > #define SA_NODEFER 0x40000000 > > > > #define SA_RESETHAND 0x80000000 > > > > -#define SA_RESTORER 0x04000000 > > > > > > > > #endif > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 2.39.1.519.gcb327c4b5f-goog > > > > > > > > > > I don't think this patch works as-is, since musl unconditionally uses > > > SA_RESTORER. We probably need to make that conditional on its > > > presence, and it looks like there's also a wrong-struct-layout issue > > > on archs where it's absent... > > > > yeah, bionic just uses the kernel uapi headers directly, and they look > > like this: > > > > struct sigaction { > > __sighandler_t sa_handler; > > unsigned long sa_flags; > > #ifdef SA_RESTORER > > __sigrestore_t sa_restorer; > > #endif > > sigset_t sa_mask; > > }; > > OK. It looks like we need to remove the wrong SA_RESTORER for archs > that aren't supposed to have it *and* add such an #ifdef. Right now, > we're passing bogus sa_mask on these archs... :( How does the attached look? Rich