This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc 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]

Re: Saving errno around signal handlers


On 02/28/2014 11:12 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:

So the first question is whether we should take advantage of that POSIX
permission at all.  This seems similar to other cases of programs having
undefined behavior, where we don't try to make them do anything sensible,
such as not checking for invalid pointer arguments.  Maybe there should be
a non-default optional sigaction flag SA_SAVEERRNO (allocation of this
flag value would of course need coordinating with the kernel), and
_FORTIFY_SOURCE or similar could then map sigaction calls to a non-default
variant that always uses this flag (it's not clear this is really within
the scope of _FORTIFY_SOURCE, though)?

Making this opt-in is not very attractive because once you touch application sources to deal with this, you could just fix the signal handler.

--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team


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