Re: [PATCH 4/4] sigaltstack: allow disabling and re-enabling sas within sighandler
From: Oleg Nesterov <hidden>
Date: 2016-02-01 16:06:35
Also in:
lkml
Honestly, I am not sure I understand what this patch does and why, and it is white space damaged, please fix. On 01/31, Stas Sergeev wrote:
linux implements the sigaltstack() in a way that makes it impossible to use with swapcontext(). Per the man page, sigaltstack is allowed to return EPERM if the process is altering its sigaltstack while running on sigaltstack. This is likely needed to consistently return oss->ss_flags, that indicates whether the process is being on sigaltstack or not. Unfortunately, linux takes that permission to return EPERM too literally: it returns EPERM even if you don't want to change to another sigaltstack, but only want to temporarily disable sigaltstack with SS_DISABLE. You can't use swapcontext() without disabling sigaltstack first, or the stack will be re-used and overwritten by a subsequent signal.
So iiuc you want to switch the stack from the signal handler running on the alt stack, and you need to ensure that another SA_ONSTACK signal won't corrupt the alt stack in between, right? Perhaps you can update the changelog to explain why do we want this change.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -2550,8 +2551,11 @@ static inline int sas_ss_flags(unsigned long sp) { if (!current->sas_ss_size) return SS_DISABLE; - - return on_sig_stack(sp) ? SS_ONSTACK : 0; + if (on_sig_stack(sp)) + return SS_ONSTACK; + if (current->sas_ss_flags == SS_DISABLE) + return SS_DISABLE; + return 0;
So this always return SS_ONSTACK if on_sig_stack(), see below.
+ onsigstack = on_sig_stack(sp);
+ if (ss_size == 0) {
+ switch (ss_flags) {
+ case 0:
+ error = -EPERM;
+ if (onsigstack)
+ goto out;
+ current->sas_ss_sp = 0;
+ current->sas_ss_size = 0;
+ current->sas_ss_flags = SS_DISABLE;
+ break;
+ case SS_ONSTACK:
+ /* re-enable previously disabled sas */
+ error = -EINVAL;
+ if (current->sas_ss_size == 0)
+ goto out;
+ break;
+ default:
+ break;
+ }and iiuc the "default" case allows you to write SS_DISABLE into ->sas_ss_flags even if on_sig_stack(). So the sequence is // running on alt stack sigaltstack(SS_DISABLE); temporary_run_on_another_stack(); sigaltstack(SS_ONSTACK); and SS_DISABLE saves us from another SA_ONSTACK signal, right? But afaics it can only help after we change the stack. Suppose that SA_ONSTACK signal comess before temporary_run_on_another_stack(). get_sigframe() should be fine after your changes (afaics), it won't pick the alt stack after SS_DISABLE. However, unless I missed something save_altstack_ex() will record SS_ONSTACK in uc_stack->ss_flags, and after return from signal handler restore_altstack() will enable alt stack again? Oleg.