This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:21:02 -0500
- Subject: Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <528A7C8F dot 8060805 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311182312130 dot 8831 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <528BA2DA dot 3090608 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311192205550 dot 8742 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20131120204655 dot GL24286 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <5295CD1D dot 7080501 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311271329590 dot 5027 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <5295F7A3 dot 9050209 at redhat dot com>
On 11/27/2013 08:46 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 11/27/2013 02:34 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2013, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> I think we should do that in the code that wraps the signal
>>> handler call, to address this class of errors once and for all.
>>> Is this feasible?
>> On many architectures the signal trampoline is provided by the
>> kernel and so has no access to libc implementation details like
>> errno. As far as I understand, even when provided by libc all it
>> does is call the sigreturn syscall and provide appropriate unwind
>> information for the registers the kernel saved on the stack - that
>> is, there is no userspace code called before the signal handler
>> that would have a chance to save errno.
> The number of signals is fixed and small, so it should be feasible to
> install our own handler in the kernel and store the user-supplied
> handler in a lookup table that gets called from our handler. There
> might be a slight performance impact, though.
> But if we think this errno issue is serious, rather than patching
> almost any signal handler out there right now, we should address it
> in glibc.
All we need to do is extend the kernel infrastructure to create
a signal entry trampoline like it does for signal return. This isn't
impossible, but requires work. The objections are probably about the
cost of the extra instructions in the entry of the signal handler,
which I think are invalid given the amount of code that runs in the
kernel to deliver the signal. Saving errno isn't that much more
expensive relative to all the other work to deliver the signal.