Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 15:12:21 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <>
Subject: Re: More thoughts on wrapping signal handling

* Alexander Monakov:

> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020, Rich Felker wrote:
>> > Yes, I kinda hand-waved over this with the word "call", which I
>> > thought about annotating with (*). In the case of SA_ONSTACK you need
>> > a primitive to "call on new stack", and while the ucontext is mostly
>> > not meaningful/inspectable to the signal handler (because it's
>> > interrupting libc code), the saved signal mask is. You can have the
>> > caller restore it (in place of SYS_[rt_]sigreturn), but the natural
>> > common solution to all of these needs is having a sort of makecontext.
>> Alternatively you could re-raise the signal to have the kernel re-deliver
>> it with the correctly regenerated ucontext (and on the right stack)?
>> Would that be undesirable for some reason?
> Ah, because there's no way to propagate siginfo struct. Sorry :)

Yes, and that's why I think copying it into TLS space will not work,

Red Hat GmbH, , Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill

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.