Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1323282
| From | Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler |
| Date | 2016-02-01 17:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qXpd9-5p0-41@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qX2Tf-5OH-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qX32W-5Tv-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Honestly, I am not sure I understand what this patch does and why, and it is
white space damaged, please fix.
On 01/31, Stas Sergeev wrote:
>
> linux implements the sigaltstack() in a way that makes it impossible to
> use with swapcontext(). Per the man page, sigaltstack is allowed to return
> EPERM if the process is altering its sigaltstack while running on
> sigaltstack.
> This is likely needed to consistently return oss->ss_flags, that indicates
> whether the process is being on sigaltstack or not.
> Unfortunately, linux takes that permission to return EPERM too literally:
> it returns EPERM even if you don't want to change to another sigaltstack,
> but only want to temporarily disable sigaltstack with SS_DISABLE.
> You can't use swapcontext() without disabling sigaltstack first, or the
> stack will be re-used and overwritten by a subsequent signal.
So iiuc you want to switch the stack from the signal handler running on the
alt stack, and you need to ensure that another SA_ONSTACK signal won't corrupt
the alt stack in between, right?
Perhaps you can update the changelog to explain why do we want this change.
> @@ -2550,8 +2551,11 @@ static inline int sas_ss_flags(unsigned long sp)
> {
> if (!current->sas_ss_size)
> return SS_DISABLE;
> -
> - return on_sig_stack(sp) ? SS_ONSTACK : 0;
> + if (on_sig_stack(sp))
> + return SS_ONSTACK;
> + if (current->sas_ss_flags == SS_DISABLE)
> + return SS_DISABLE;
> + return 0;
So this always return SS_ONSTACK if on_sig_stack(), see below.
> + onsigstack = on_sig_stack(sp);
> + if (ss_size == 0) {
> + switch (ss_flags) {
> + case 0:
> + error = -EPERM;
> + if (onsigstack)
> + goto out;
> + current->sas_ss_sp = 0;
> + current->sas_ss_size = 0;
> + current->sas_ss_flags = SS_DISABLE;
> + break;
> + case SS_ONSTACK:
> + /* re-enable previously disabled sas */
> + error = -EINVAL;
> + if (current->sas_ss_size == 0)
> + goto out;
> + break;
> + default:
> + break;
> + }
and iiuc the "default" case allows you to write SS_DISABLE into ->sas_ss_flags
even if on_sig_stack().
So the sequence is
// running on alt stack
sigaltstack(SS_DISABLE);
temporary_run_on_another_stack();
sigaltstack(SS_ONSTACK);
and SS_DISABLE saves us from another SA_ONSTACK signal, right?
But afaics it can only help after we change the stack. Suppose that SA_ONSTACK signal
comess before temporary_run_on_another_stack(). get_sigframe() should be fine after
your changes (afaics), it won't pick the alt stack after SS_DISABLE.
However, unless I missed something save_altstack_ex() will record SS_ONSTACK in
uc_stack->ss_flags, and after return from signal handler restore_altstack() will
enable alt stack again?
Oleg.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 0/4] make sigaltstack() compatible with swapcontext() Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2016-01-31 17:20 +0100
[PATCH 1/4] selftests: Add test for sigaltstack(SS_DISABLE) inside sighandler Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2016-01-31 17:20 +0100
[PATCH 2/4] score: signal: fix sigaltstack check Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2016-01-31 17:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] score: signal: fix sigaltstack check Lennox Wu <lennox.wu@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 20:10 +0100
[PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2016-01-31 17:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-01-31 18:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2016-01-31 18:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-01-31 20:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2016-01-31 21:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-01-31 21:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2016-01-31 23:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-01-31 23:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2016-02-01 00:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-02-01 17:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2016-02-01 18:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-02-01 18:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-02-01 18:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2016-02-01 18:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-02-01 19:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2016-02-01 19:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-02-01 19:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2016-02-01 19:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-02-01 20:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2016-02-01 20:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-02-01 20:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2016-02-01 20:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-02-01 21:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2016-02-02 00:10 +0100
[PATCH 3/4] x86: signal: unify the sigaltstack check with other arches Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2016-01-31 17:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: signal: unify the sigaltstack check with other arches Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-01-31 18:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: signal: unify the sigaltstack check with other arches Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2016-01-31 19:10 +0100
csiph-web