[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200810170053.GK3265@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 13:00:53 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Revisiting sigaltstack and implementation-internal signals
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 06:57:21PM +0200, Olaf Flebbe wrote:
> Hi Rick ,
>
> While the alternate stack is in use on cannot change the alternate stack.
>
> See https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/
> EPERM Error.
No change of the alternate stack is described here. The minimal
example of the scenario only has one call to sigaltstack in the whole
program.
> > Am 10.08.2020 um 18:36 schrieb Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 10:15:13AM +0200, Olaf Flebbe wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have some problems to follow the discussion here.
> >>
> >> It is not about musl to create an alternate stack, it is to *honor* the alternate stack, if the application installed one, for a reason.
> >>
> >> I am proposing smthg like
> >>
> >> --- /oss/musl-1.2.1/src/thread/synccall.c
> >> +++ /work/musl/src/thread/synccall.c
> >> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@
> >> {
> >> sigset_t oldmask;
> >> int cs, i, r;
> >> - struct sigaction sa = { .sa_flags = SA_RESTART, .sa_handler = handler };
> >> + struct sigaction sa = { .sa_flags = SA_RESTART|SA_ONSTACK, ...sa_handler = handler };
> >> pthread_t self = __pthread_self(), td;
> >> int count = 0;
> >>
> >> This will fix the problem with dynamic stacks, like go implements it.
> >> If the application does not install one, kernel will ignore
> >> SA_ONSTACK. (This is even specified by POSIX, since there is no
> >> error condition mentioned in man page specifically for this).
> >
> > It's fundamental, since presence and identity of an alternate stack
> > are thread-local properties and SA_ONSTACK is global to the signal
> > disposition.
> >
> > The behavior we're concerned about this alterring is not the case
> > where an application does not install an alternate stack; of course
> > that's unaffected. The interesting case is where an application does
> > install one, but expects (albeit IMO wrongly; that's what we're trying
> > to establish) that the stack memory is not touched/clobbered unless
> > there's actually an SA_ONSTACK signal handler present to run on it and
> > such a signal arrives. With the proposed change, the memory for the
> > alternate stack can be clobbered asynchronously with no such signal
> > handler existing. (In case it's not clear, the above code is *not a
> > signal handler* from the perspective that's relevant; it's an
> > implementation detail internal to the implementation.)
> >
> > One way such clobbering could manifest is when a signal handler
> > running on the alternate stack temporarily moves the stack pointer to
> > somewhere else (not on the alternate stack), via swapcontext or some
> > other method. In this case, if a signal for cancellation or synccall
> > arrives, the kernel will consider the alt stack not in use, and will
> > start using it again from the beginning, clobbering the still-running
> > frames.
> >
> > Rich
>
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.
