|
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1606201353420.4058@s1.palsenberg.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:00:42 +0200 (CEST) From: Igmar Palsenberg <igmar@...senberg.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: abort() fails to terminate PID 1 process > > First, processes kan install handlers, which might > > instruct the kernel to ignore the signal. SIGABORT can be ignored. I don't > > abort() should terminate the process even if SIGABRT is ignored. That rule doesn't apply to pid 1 by default. Pid 1 should be a proper init system, not a full blows application that makes the system blow up on every error. > > expect my process to be SIGILL'ed next because of this (which, can also be > > ignored). > > Libc should NOT mess with these kind of things, that's up to the > > application. > > the glibc fallbacks are > > change signal mask and set default handling for SIGABRT > raise(SIGABRT); > "abort instruction" (segfault, sigtrap or sigill depending on target) > _exit(127); > infinite loop Pid 1 is an exception to all of this. > http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=stdlib/abort.c;h=155d70b0647e848f1d40fc0e3b15a2914d7145c0;hb=HEAD > > on x86 glibc, pid 1 would terminate with SIGSEGV > (unless there is a segfault handler). > > the musl logic is explained in > > http://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/commit/?id=2557d0ba47286ed3e868f8ddc9dbed0942fe99dc > > neither of them is correct because it is not possible to > exit with the right status in general. > > SIGKILL can only be ignored by pid 1 whose exit status is > not supposed to be observable so musl may want to have a > fallback after it since the pid namespace thing is nowadays > widely abused on linux. Well, normally abort() does some signal magic, and then raises again. Which is what POSIX mandates I think. If you're pid 1 however, you should behave like one. Igmar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.