ARC vs. generic sigaction (was Re: [PATCH 08/21] ARC: Linux Syscall Interface)

[vineet.gupta1@synopsys.com (Vineet Gupta)]

On 12/20/18 12:06 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> 
> 
> On 20/12/2018 17:23, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> On 12/20/18 3:19 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>>>> #define SET_SA_RESTORER(kact, act)                      \
>>>>>   (kact)->sa_flags = (act)->sa_flags | SA_RESTORER;     \
>>>>>   (kact)->sa_restorer = &__default_rt_sa_restorer
>>>> +#define SET_SA_RESTORER(kact, act)				\
>>>> + ({								\
>>>> +   if (!((kact)->sa_flags & SA_RESTORER))			\
>>>> +     {								\
>>>> +       (kact)->sa_restorer = __default_rt_sa_restorer;		\
>>>> +       (kact)->sa_flags |= SA_RESTORER;			\
>>>> +     }								\
>>>> +   else							\
>>>> +     (kact)->sa_restorer = (act)->sa_restorer;			\
>>>> + })
>>> What is so special about ARC sa_restorer that an application should provide
>>> an specialized one?
>>
>> Its the other way around. Only if application provides it's own restorer, we honor
>> it, otherwise default restorer is used. This logic goes back many many years ago
>> to how ARC uClibc did this and likely inherited it from the port it was copied
>> from. But I don't know if say POSIX allows apps to provide their own restorer or
>> not. We could very well remove it; although per other discussion if we intend to
>> use the same struct sigaction for kernel/userland, the placeholder would exist and
>> we could choose to just ignore it.
>>
> 
> The 'should' should be indeed 'might' in my question. And SA_RESTORER is a Linux
> specific ABI not intended to be used by applications, 

What do u mean here. It is ABI between userspace and kernel, but not necessarily
between applications and glibc, although the same "carrier" sa_flags is in play ?
IOW, SA_RESTORER is not intended to be set by applications, but only by glibc ?

> so my question is in fact
> what kind of specialized sa_restorer applications might provided that would
> require the libc to honour it. 

Indeed, applications should not be allowed to change it. The exact signature of
default sigreturn is hardwired in signal unwinding etc etc and any deviation from
that is recipe for issues: but like I mentioned I didn't invent that interface for
ARC.

> The placeholder existence is not an issue itself (POSIX states the minimum
> fields sigaction should provide, not its specific fields neither their
> layout).

OK !

>>> Can't it follow other abi where they issue __NR_sigreturn
>>> for !SA_SIGINFO or __NR_rt_sigreturn otherwise?
>>
>> With Linux UAPI ABI, __NR_sigreturn doesn't exist, but your concern is about
>> restorer ?
> 
> Right, so ARC at least is not pulling old compat stuff. Is it safe to just zero
> the sa_restorer for sa_flags without SA_RESTORER?

Thing is ARC signal return depends on a restorer. Meaning !SA_RESTORER doesn't
effectively exist (between libc and kernel). We currently honor user provided
value, instead we could simply overwrite it with default_rt_restorer and on the
way out, zero it out to avoid leaking the glibc guts to curious users.