[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.20.13.1708010821580.2270@monopod.intra.ispras.ru>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 08:28:27 +0300 (MSK)
From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: possible bug in setjmp implementation for ppc64
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017, Bobby Bingham wrote:
> I think this either requires having different versions of setjmp/longjmp
> for static and dynamic libc,
Do you mean for non-pic vs pic objects? As I understand, when libc.a is
built with -fpic (so it's suitable for static-pie), setjmp-longjmp need
to preserve saved TOC at (r1+24). So presumably source code would need
to test #ifdef __PIC__?
> or to increase the size of jmpbuf so we can always save/restore both
> r2 and the value on the stack, but this would be an ABI change.
Would that work for non-pic, i.e. is (r1+24) a reserved location even in
non-pic mode? If not, you can't overwrite it from longjmp.
Alexander
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.
