Got it. Thanks again Al.
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 7:28 PM Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 06:19:31PM -0800, Walt Drummond wrote: > > Thanks Al. I want to understand the nuance, so please bear with me as I > > reason this out. The cast in stone nature of this is due to both the need > > to keep userspace and kernel space in sync (ie, you'd have to coordinate > > libc and kernel changes super tightly to pull this off), and any change in > > the size of struct rt_sigframe would break backwards compatibility with > > older binaries, is that correct? > > Pretty much so. I would expect gdb and friends to be very unhappy about > that, for starters, along with a bunch of fun stuff like JVM, etc. > > Ask the userland folks (libc, gdb, etc.) how would they feel about such > changes. I'm fairly sure that it's _not_ going to be a matter of > changing _NSIG, rebuilding the kernel and living happily ever after.
