[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH -v2] fix for futex_wait signal stack corruption
Thanks for clarifying that Linus.

David Holmes

Linus Torvalds said the following on 5/12/07 04:06 PM:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, David Holmes - Sun Microsystems wrote:
>> While this was observed with process control signals, my concern was that
>> other signals might cause pthread_cond_timedwait to return immediately in the
>> same way. The test program allows for SIGUSR1 and SIGRTMIN testing as well,
>> but these other signals did not cause the immediate return. But it would seem
>> from Steven's analysis that this is just a fortuitous result. If I understand
>> things correctly, any interruption of pthread_cond_timedwait by a signal,
>> could result in waiting until an arbitrary time - depending on how the stack
>> value was corrupted. Is that correct?
> No, very few things can actually cause the restart_block path to be taken.
> An actual signal execution would turn that into an EINTR, the only case
> that should ever trigger this is a signal that causes some kernel action
> (ie the system call *is* interrupted), but does not actually result in any
> user-visible state changes.
> The classic case is ^Z + bg, but iirc you can trigger it with ptrace too.
> And I think two threads racing to pick up the same signal can cause it
> too, for that matter (ie one thread takes the signal, the other one got
> interrupted but there's nothing there, so it just causes a system call
> restart).
> There's basically two different system call restart mechanisms in the
> kernel:
> - returning -ERESTARTNOHAND will cause the system call to be restarted
> with the *original* arguments if no signal handler was actually
> invoked. This has been around for a long time, and is used by a lot of
> system calls. It's fine for things that are idempotent, ie the argument
> meaning doesn't change over time (things like a "read()" system call,
> for example)
> - the "restart_block" model that returns -ERESTARTBLOCK, which will cause
> the system call to be restarted with the arguments specified in the
> system call restart block. This is for system calls that are *not*
> idempotent, ie the argument might be a relative timeout or something
> like that, where we need to actually behave *differently* when
> restarting.
> The latter case is "new" (it's been around for a while, but relative to
> the ERESTARTNOHAND one), and it relies on the system call itself setting
> up its restart point and the argument save area. And each such system call
> can obviously screw it up by saving/restoring the arguments with the
> incorrect semantics.
> So this bug was really (a) specific to that particular futex restart
> mechanism, and (b) only triggers for the (rather unusual) case where the
> system call gets interrupted by a signal, but no signal handler actually
> happens. In practice, ^Z is the most common case by far (other signals are
> either ignored and don't even cause an interrupt event in the first place,
> or they are "real" signals, and cause a signal handler to be invoked).
> Linus

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-12-05 07:17    [W:0.181 / U:1.112 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site