Re: sigaltstack breaks swapcontext()

[Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru>]

08.03.2016 00:32, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> wrote:
>> 08.03.2016 00:10, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
>>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> wrote:
>>>> 09.01.2016 04:48, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> wrote:
>>>>>> 09.01.2016 02:24, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
>>>>>>> It's not sigaltstack that I'm thinking about.  It's signal delivery.
>>>>>>> If you end up in DOS mode with SP coincidentally pointing to the
>>>>>>> sigaltstack (but with different SS so it's not really the
>>>>>>> sigaltstack), then the signal delivery will malfunction.
>>>>>> Will you take care of this one?
>>>>>> Looks quite dangerous for dosemu! And absolutely
>>>>>> undebuggable: you never know when you hit it.
>>>>> I'll try to remember to tack it on to the sigcontext series.
>>>> How is this one going?
>> So what do you think about checking SS when
>> evaluating the on_sig_stack condition? Will you
>> fix this, or should I try?
> It fits in with your series, and you're welcome to do it.  You can
> also poke me and get me to do it.
>
>>>> There seem to be one more bug in sigcontext handling.
>>>> dosemu have this code:
>>>> ---
>>>>     /*
>>>>      * FIRST thing to do in signal handlers - to avoid being trapped into
>>>> int0x11
>>>>      * forever, we must restore the eflags.
>>>>      */
>>>>     loadflags(eflags_fs_gs.eflags);
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> I quickly checked the kernel code, and it seems the
>>>> flags are indeed forgotten, even on ia32! I think the
>>>> most dangerous flags are AC and NT. But most of
>>>> others are important too. IMHO the safe defaults
>>>> should be forced when entering the sighandler.
>>>> Would you mind taking a look at this problem too?
>>> Clearing NT seems sane.
>>>
>>> Clearing AC seems like an ABI break, so I'd be a bit nervous about
>>> clearing AC unconditionally.
>> What exactly do you mean? Is this a documented part of ABI?
>> Where can I find out how the flags are supposed to be set on
>> entering a sighandler, any docs on that?
>> I thought they should just be forced to some default value, the
>> same as the segregs are handled.
> ABI is that which existing programs rely on, which may or may not be
> related to any docs.  If there are AC users and they want their signal
> handlers to be protected by AC, then this change would break them.
But aren't such users (I am sure there are none who use AC in
a sighandler) supposed to set the AC flag explicitly in a sighandler?
I just thought this is a bug, not an ABI feature at all. So no one
should rely on that IMHO.

>>>     We could add yet another SS flag (sigh),
>> But this is not a sigreturn() problem and not sigaltstack() problem,
>> so what exactly flag do you mean?
> I meant SA_ flag, not SS_.  Whoops.
But you said "yet another", and we haven't yet added any
SA_ flag here. :)

>>> or we could make the change.  As a more conservative option, we could
>>> make it so that AC is cleared on entry to an alignment check signal.
>> Hmm. But if we deliver such signal, the userspace will still
>> crash, so what's the use?
> Userspace could handle the SIGBUS and clear AC from regs->flags if
> they were so inclined.
Oh, no, I'd better leave popf in the beginning of a sighandler,
as it is now done in dosemu. :)

> Anyway, maybe Linus or the x86 maintainers have some idea of how AC is
> used.  If there are people who use it for a whole program and if libc
> can survive the experience, then they might expect even signal
> handlers to run with AC set.
I wonder how do they get such an expectation.
It is likely a bug, unexpected behaviour. I wonder if someone
could expect this, and I really doubt someone needs AC in a
sighandler.
So I agree, lets see what other people think, and if there are
no couter arguments, lets just force eflags to the default.