PING: [PATCH] x86: Add __sigsetjmp_cancel and __setjmp_cancel

[Zack Weinberg]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 10:32 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 1:59 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 4:28 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 1:24 AM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
>>>>> * H. J. Lu:
>>>>>
>>> Here is the updated patch.  OK for master?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> PING:
>>
>> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-03/msg00521.html

HJ, you've been posting a long stream of one-off fixes to the shadow
stack support code with no end in sight, and you seem to be in a
terrible hurry about it, and speaking only for myself, those add up to
me having no confidence that _any_ of the patches are correct.

Would you please consider halting the stream of code changes for long
enough to write up a careful, thorough description of exactly what the
shadow stack's requirements are and how they interact with _all_ of
the C library's abnormal control flow features (at least:
setjmp/longjmp, cancellation, C++ exceptions, threads, ucontext
coroutines, regular old signals, and signals delivered to an
alternative stack; and I'm sure I'm forgetting at least one more)?
Post _that_ for review. Only go back to the code changes when all of
the x86 maintainers are satisfied that we know how this _ought_ to
work.

zw