From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [revert request for commit 9fff2fa] Re: [git pull] signals pile 3
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:27:32 +0100
Message-ID: <20121015162732.GG2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20121013005334.GM2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <507ADBBB.9090209@gmail.com>
 <20121014164020.GV2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CACTFLAOpcLtHNx-TCHQkUOPNAkTO8EgDhbyZSGQ9ag+Wu_cNRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20121014172640.GW2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20121014192402.GZ2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20121014195611.GA2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20121015160710.GC30907@arm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:47503 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752639Ab2JOQ1i (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:27:38 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20121015160710.GC30907@arm.com>
Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-arch.vger.kernel.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Daniel Mack <zonque@gmail.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 05:07:10PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 08:56:11PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 08:24:03PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > 
> > > Russell, could you recall what those had been about?  I'm not sure if that
> > > had been oopsable that far back (again, oops scenario is userland stack
> > > page getting swapped out before we get to start_thread(), leading to
> > > direct read from an absent page in start_thread() by plain ldr, without
> > > anything in exception table about that insn), but it looks very odd
> > > regardless of that problem.
> > 
> > BTW, arm64 has copied that logics, so it also seems to be unsafe and very
> > odd - there we definitely have only ELF to cope with.  arm64 folks Cc'd...
> 
> Good point. We don't need this on arm64 and probably neither on arm (at
> least since EABI).
> 
> Setting x0 may cause other issues as well. The dynamic loader simply
> ignores the startup registers but for static binaries the _start code in
> glibc expects r0 to contain a function pointer to be registered with
> atexit() in __libc_start_main() or NULL. Since we pass argc in there,
> for static binaries the rtld_fini argument to __libc_start_main() is
> neither NULL nor something meaningful.

The value left there by start_thread() will not reach the userland anyway...