Updated patches attached.

W.r.t.:
> Here, "set to" is
> probably something the resolution of Austin Group issue 1187 failed to
> fix; it should probably be "includes" rather than "is set to". But I'm
> not sure it makes sense to have any flags set alongside SS_DISABLE
> anyway.

While the SS_AUTODISARM flag has no effect if specified alongside
SS_DISABLE, the kernel still accepts and stores it. So A subsequent call to
sigaltstack can return SS_DISABLE|SS_AUTODISARM in the "old" flags value.
To avoid the case where the old value returned from sigaltstack is not
accepted back as the input, I used the "includes" semantics here.


On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 2:39 PM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 02:04:18PM -0400, James Y Knight wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 3:30 PM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
>
>