[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAA2zVHrijyMnrUef5XUqRKX+H0QOwugRmk+gJOgPLvbxJ78=9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 16:11:23 -0400
From: James Y Knight <jyknight@...gle.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix the use of sigaltstack to return to the saved
main stack.
Updated patches attached.
W.r.t.:
> Here, "set to" is
> probably something the resolution of Austin Group issue 1187 failed to
> fix; it should probably be "includes" rather than "is set to". But I'm
> not sure it makes sense to have any flags set alongside SS_DISABLE
> anyway.
While the SS_AUTODISARM flag has no effect if specified alongside
SS_DISABLE, the kernel still accepts and stores it. So A subsequent call to
sigaltstack can return SS_DISABLE|SS_AUTODISARM in the "old" flags value.
To avoid the case where the old value returned from sigaltstack is not
accepted back as the input, I used the "includes" semantics here.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 2:39 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 02:04:18PM -0400, James Y Knight wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 3:30 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
>
>
Content of type "text/html" skipped
View attachment "0001-Fix-the-use-of-sigaltstack-to-return-to-the-saved-ma.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1347 bytes)
View attachment "0001-Verify-that-returning-to-the-original-stack-doesn-t-.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1166 bytes)
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.
