[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 09:24:28 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Replacing a_crash() ?
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 01:13:50PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> [2018-09-16 23:23:17 -0400]:
> > Now that we have an abort() that reliably terminates with uncatchable
> > SIGABRT, I've been thinking about replacing the a_crash() calls in
> > musl (which are usually an instruction generating SIGILL or SIGSEGV)
> > with calls to the uncatchable tail of abort(), which I would factor
> > off as a __forced_abort() function.
> >
> > In case it's not clear, the reason for not just calling abort() is
> > that too many programs catch it, and catching it is even encouraged.
> > Catchability is a problem with the current approach too, since
> > a_crash() is used in places where process state is known to be
> > dangerously corrupt and likely under attacker control; eliminating it
> > is one of the potential goals of switching to __forced_abort().
>
> i wonder if it can be made debugging friendly in some way,
> e.g. with multiple failure paths merged into a single
> __forced_abort call or when it's tail called, it may
> not be clear from a core dump why the abort happened.
>
> if __forced_abort(const char *reason) stored its argument
> somewhere that is not clobbered then it may be easier to
> figure out what went wrong. (you would still need some
> debug skills to look at the reason though..)
I think gcc already does something to make _Noreturn functions easier
to debug like this, doesn't it? There's really not much advantage to a
tail call when the function won't return.
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.
