From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jan  1 08:48:26 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 45DA516A4CE; Thu,  1 Jan 2004 08:48:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 35F7843D54; Thu,  1 Jan 2004 08:48:25 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i01GmOiw020728;
	Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:48:24 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:48:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FF43B93.5060209@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10401011138130.18629-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: sigaltstack with threads
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 16:48:26 -0000

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, David Xu wrote:

> Doug Rabson wrote:
> > I think that if its supported at all in threaded programs, it must be
> > per-thread state otherwise you can't prevent two different threads
> > colliding on the same signal stack. I can't quite see how this maps to
> > KSE/KSEG since I only have the most hazy model of that stuff in my head
> > right now.
> > 
> > Anyway, I've worked around things by not setting SA_ONSTACK for the
> > handlers that I want to run on the thread stack.
> > 
> > 
> I have worked out a patch to support per-thread sigaltstack() state,
> in most cases, it is just a literally replacement.
> 
> http://people.freebsd.org/~davidxu/kse/kern_sigaltstack.diffs

Looks good, but I have a question.  You removed the proc lock
in kern_sig.c:osigstack() and kern_sig.c:kern_sigaltstack().
What prevents a signal from being sent to the current thread
while it is mucking with the altsigstack?  Is it possible for
an interrupt to swap out the current thread and have a signal
installed for it sometime later before it can complete
sigaltstack()?  Or do signals only get installed on the way
out of the kernel?

-- 
Dan Eischen