|
Message-ID: <Zuri5yKtN3TNmzNW@voyager> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 16:25:43 +0200 From: Markus Wichmann <nullplan@....net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: SIGSEGV/stack overflow in pthread_create - race condition? Am Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 02:02:50PM -0400 schrieb Rich Felker: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 03:35:20PM +0200, Markus Wichmann wrote: > > Am Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 08:12:41AM -0400 schrieb Rich Felker: > > > Yes, getting minimal annotation needed for the debugger to handle this > > > right is an open todo item. Ideally it would be contingent on whether > > > you enabled debugging so that it wouldn't end up in no-debug-info > > > builds. Slimming down the asm source files to the minimum that > > > actually have to be asm source files (like clone, I think), which is > > > also a wishlist item, would make it less of an invasive change, which > > > is probably why I've held off on digging into it. > > > > Would it not be enough to clear fp in the clone child? That should > > initialize the frame pointer chain, right? OK, it is an actual > > instruction more for everyone, but I doubt the impact would even be > > measurable. > > Oh, maybe it's not a cfi issue at all, just failure to clear frame > pointer? Fixing that would be perfectly acceptable. > > Rich I should add that I don't know if that would fix it, because I don't know ARM very well. However, the ARM CRT code does initialize fp and the ARM __clone code does not. Ciao, Markus
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.