This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]


[CC Ben, please keep him on the CC in replies.  Thank you]

Hi Ken,

On Jun 26 12:55, Ken Brown wrote:
> Hi Corinna,
> On 6/26/2015 11:36 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >Thanks.  Another question:  How does emacs compute stack_bottom?
> Very near the beginning of main() it does the following:
>   char stack_bottom_variable;
> [...]
>   /* Record (approximately) where the stack begins.  */
>   stack_bottom = &stack_bottom_variable;

Thank you.

I created an STC with your code snippets and it now works for me
(attached for reference).

First problem was the return value of getrlimit(RLIMIT_STACK).

Second problem is emacs.  The check for an offset of the offending
address in si_addr being less than 16K (STACK_DANGER_ZONE) is
non-portable, putting it mildly.  This might work on 32 bit Cygwin (I
didn't test that), but the value is too low for 64 bit Cygwin.  With
STACK_DANGER_ZONE == 32K the handler works as desired on 64 bit Cygwin.
Part of the reason is probably the _cygtls area of 12K reserved on each
thread's stack, which moves the address of &stack_bottom_variable to a
pretty low value right from the start.  Another the size of the guard
page area on the main thread (16K).

I had a brief email exchange with a collegue of mine.  Ben allowed me to
quote him, so here are the important snippets of his replies:

- Rlimits are an old way of doing a job and they were to a certain
  extent tied up in the pre-thread world of unix processes.  rlimits
  have never been fully implemented on linux with a way that reproduces
  the unix way in the pre-thread era. rlimits have become a bit of a
  historical legacy and are there for posix compliance and code
  compatibility. The posix language was designed to be vague enough that
  all implementations could be made to conform.

- Rather than making the system implementation conform to some
  unspecified behavior, I think it might be a wise idea to fix emacs
  instead. Looking at the code fragment you posted below(*), Iâm not
  entirely convinced that the code would operate as intended on modern
  Linux or Unix. Given that, it may be better to make an implementation
  which does something like the current behavior was intended to do or
  better yet just remove it as a likely latent bug.

(*) Emacs' handle_sigsegv function.

Of course, for testing purposes this is still nice to have, so thank you
for this test, I really appreciate it.

As for getrlimit(RLIMIT_STACK), I changed that as outlined in my former
mail in git.  On second thought, I also changed the values of
MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ.  Instead of 2K and 8K, they are now defined
as 32K and 64K.  The reason is that we then have enough space on the
alternate stack to install a _cygtls area, should the need arise.

I created new developer snapshots on
Please give them a try.

Remember to tweak STACK_DANGER_ZONE.  You'll have to rebuild emacs
anyway due to the change to [MIN]SIGSTKSZ.


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Attachment: sigalt.c
Description: Text document

Attachment: pgp_CFIo3NyId.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]