[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 282 bytes --] 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? [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 320 bytes --]
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.
Rich
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 834 bytes --] On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:19 AM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> 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. > i noticed this by inspection after someone had some code that (correctly) didn't compile with bionic or glibc but did with musl. in addition to rejecting the proposal to add a rv64 SA_RESTORER to bionic, i said i'd reach out to musl about removing it there :-) > Rich > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1371 bytes --]
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:19 AM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> 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
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 783 bytes --] oops, never actually sent the patch. attached... On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:31 AM Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:19 AM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> 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 [-- Attachment #2: 0001-risc-v-does-not-have-SA_RESTORER.patch --] [-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 795 bytes --] From 6413de6d9f785c98e5bc0cf40be947f1169d2fd7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Elliott Hughes <enh@google.com> 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
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 <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:19 AM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> 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 <enh@google.com> > 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... Rich
On Sun, Feb 5, 2023 at 3:54 PM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> 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 <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:19 AM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> 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 <enh@google.com> > > 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; }; > Rich
On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 08:51:13AM -0800, enh wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2023 at 3:54 PM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> 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 <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:19 AM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> 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 <enh@google.com>
> > > 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... :(
Rich
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2964 bytes --] 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 <dalias@libc.org> 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 <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:19 AM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> 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 <enh@google.com> > > > > 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 [-- Attachment #2: SA_RESTORER.diff --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 4369 bytes --] diff --git a/arch/microblaze/bits/signal.h b/arch/microblaze/bits/signal.h index 490f83bf..f25b7c6a 100644 --- a/arch/microblaze/bits/signal.h +++ b/arch/microblaze/bits/signal.h @@ -46,7 +46,6 @@ typedef struct __ucontext { #define SA_RESTART 0x10000000 #define SA_NODEFER 0x40000000 #define SA_RESETHAND 0x80000000 -#define SA_RESTORER 0x04000000 #endif diff --git a/arch/mips/bits/signal.h b/arch/mips/bits/signal.h index 1b69e762..a3b3857a 100644 --- a/arch/mips/bits/signal.h +++ b/arch/mips/bits/signal.h @@ -66,7 +66,6 @@ typedef struct __ucontext { #define SA_RESTART 0x10000000 #define SA_NODEFER 0x40000000 #define SA_RESETHAND 0x80000000 -#define SA_RESTORER 0x04000000 #undef SIG_BLOCK #undef SIG_UNBLOCK diff --git a/arch/mips/ksigaction.h b/arch/mips/ksigaction.h index 63fdfab0..2141a0a2 100644 --- a/arch/mips/ksigaction.h +++ b/arch/mips/ksigaction.h @@ -4,10 +4,6 @@ struct k_sigaction { unsigned flags; void (*handler)(int); unsigned long mask[4]; - /* The following field is past the end of the structure the - * kernel will read or write, and exists only to avoid having - * mips-specific preprocessor conditionals in sigaction.c. */ - void (*restorer)(); }; hidden void __restore(), __restore_rt(); diff --git a/arch/mips64/bits/signal.h b/arch/mips64/bits/signal.h index 4f91c9fc..ffec7fd0 100644 --- a/arch/mips64/bits/signal.h +++ b/arch/mips64/bits/signal.h @@ -85,7 +85,6 @@ typedef struct __ucontext { #define SA_RESTART 0x10000000 #define SA_NODEFER 0x40000000 #define SA_RESETHAND 0x80000000 -#define SA_RESTORER 0x04000000 #undef SIG_BLOCK #undef SIG_UNBLOCK diff --git a/arch/mips64/ksigaction.h b/arch/mips64/ksigaction.h index c16e4731..c0b73ae9 100644 --- a/arch/mips64/ksigaction.h +++ b/arch/mips64/ksigaction.h @@ -4,7 +4,6 @@ struct k_sigaction { unsigned flags; void (*handler)(int); unsigned long mask[2]; - void (*restorer)(); }; hidden void __restore(), __restore_rt(); diff --git a/arch/mipsn32/bits/signal.h b/arch/mipsn32/bits/signal.h index 4f91c9fc..ffec7fd0 100644 --- a/arch/mipsn32/bits/signal.h +++ b/arch/mipsn32/bits/signal.h @@ -85,7 +85,6 @@ typedef struct __ucontext { #define SA_RESTART 0x10000000 #define SA_NODEFER 0x40000000 #define SA_RESETHAND 0x80000000 -#define SA_RESTORER 0x04000000 #undef SIG_BLOCK #undef SIG_UNBLOCK diff --git a/arch/mipsn32/ksigaction.h b/arch/mipsn32/ksigaction.h index b565f1fc..2141a0a2 100644 --- a/arch/mipsn32/ksigaction.h +++ b/arch/mipsn32/ksigaction.h @@ -4,7 +4,6 @@ struct k_sigaction { unsigned flags; void (*handler)(int); unsigned long mask[4]; - void (*restorer)(); }; hidden void __restore(), __restore_rt(); diff --git a/arch/or1k/bits/signal.h b/arch/or1k/bits/signal.h index be576d1d..c45be676 100644 --- a/arch/or1k/bits/signal.h +++ b/arch/or1k/bits/signal.h @@ -43,7 +43,6 @@ typedef struct __ucontext { #define SA_RESTART 0x10000000 #define SA_NODEFER 0x40000000 #define SA_RESETHAND 0x80000000 -#define SA_RESTORER 0x04000000 #endif 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 diff --git a/src/internal/ksigaction.h b/src/internal/ksigaction.h index 8ebd5938..f0b6a837 100644 --- a/src/internal/ksigaction.h +++ b/src/internal/ksigaction.h @@ -6,7 +6,9 @@ struct k_sigaction { void (*handler)(int); unsigned long flags; +#ifdef SA_RESTORER void (*restorer)(void); +#endif unsigned mask[2]; }; diff --git a/src/signal/sigaction.c b/src/signal/sigaction.c index 2203471b..e45308fa 100644 --- a/src/signal/sigaction.c +++ b/src/signal/sigaction.c @@ -44,8 +44,11 @@ int __libc_sigaction(int sig, const struct sigaction *restrict sa, struct sigact } } ksa.handler = sa->sa_handler; - ksa.flags = sa->sa_flags | SA_RESTORER; + ksa.flags = sa->sa_flags; +#ifdef SA_RESTORER + ksa.flags |= SA_RESTORER; ksa.restorer = (sa->sa_flags & SA_SIGINFO) ? __restore_rt : __restore; +#endif memcpy(&ksa.mask, &sa->sa_mask, _NSIG/8); } int r = __syscall(SYS_rt_sigaction, sig, sa?&ksa:0, old?&ksa_old:0, _NSIG/8);
yes, that looks like what we have in bionic for riscv64 (and what we
had for mips before it was removed). thanks!
On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:45 PM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
>
> 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 <dalias@libc.org> 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 <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:19 AM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> 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 <enh@google.com>
> > > > > 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