Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:38:25 -0500
From: Bobby Bingham <>
Subject: Re: possible bug in setjmp implementation for ppc64

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 12:58:16AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > sigsetjmp calls setjmp, but I believe this will always use the intra-dso
> > entry point.  Same for the call siglongjmp makes to longjmp.  So calls
> > via sigsetjmp/siglongjmp will always be detected as local calls, even
> > when the originally caller of jig*jmp is in a different dso.
> >
> > My plan right now is create a __setjmp_toc function which is identical
> > to the normal setjmp except that the TOC pointer to save is passed in as
> > another parameter.  setjmp will detect which entry point is used, pull
> > the TOC pointer from the right place, and call __setjmp_toc.  sigsetjmp
> > will be updated similarly to detect which entry point is used and to
> > call __setjmp_toc directly instead of going through setjmp.
> I've been thinking about it and at first thought it sounded overly
> fragile and hard to understand, but now I think it makes sense and
> should work. It would just involve copying r2 to a call-clobbered
> argument register before loading the new value, right?

I'm not sure what "new value" you're referring to here.

The idea is basically:

	setjmp: # non-local entry point
		r5 = r1[24]
		goto __setjmp_toc

		.localentry # local entry point
		r5 = r2

		# all the existing code from setjmp, but save r5 instead of r2

> I was considering whether you could just avoid loading the TOC pointer
> at all (leaving the correct value in r2 for setjmp to save), and this
> might work, but I think it would make calling __sigsetjmp_tail
> difficult and error-prone.
> > siglongjmp is current written in C by just calling longjmp.  I'm tempted
> > to just add a "siglongjmp:" label in the asm for longjmp and add an
> > empty powerpc64/siglongjmp.c file to suppress the default
> > implementation.  I want to ask if there's any reason it wouldn't be
> > valid for these two functions to have the same address.
> I don't see any reason to make this change (it won't make any
> functional difference -- call frames and such don't matter at this
> point), and at least the siglongjmp symbol would have to be weak to
> respect namespace if you did it that way.

I'm not sure why a change like this wouldn't be required.

The requirements on longjmp here are:
* when called through the local entry point, restore the TOC pointer
  into r2
* when called via the PLT stub, restore the TOC pointer to the stack

And siglongjmp needs to have the same behavior.  If the main program
makes a cross-dso call to siglongjmp, it needs to restore the TOC
pointer to the stack.  But siglongjmp works by making a local call to
longjmp, meaning without this change, it will only ever restore the TOC
pointer to r2.

> 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.