lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [revert request for commit 9fff2fa] Re: [git pull] signals pile 3
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 05:07:10PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 08:56:11PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 08:24:03PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > > Russell, could you recall what those had been about? I'm not sure if that
> > > had been oopsable that far back (again, oops scenario is userland stack
> > > page getting swapped out before we get to start_thread(), leading to
> > > direct read from an absent page in start_thread() by plain ldr, without
> > > anything in exception table about that insn), but it looks very odd
> > > regardless of that problem.
> >
> > BTW, arm64 has copied that logics, so it also seems to be unsafe and very
> > odd - there we definitely have only ELF to cope with. arm64 folks Cc'd...
>
> Good point. We don't need this on arm64 and probably neither on arm (at
> least since EABI).
>
> Setting x0 may cause other issues as well. The dynamic loader simply
> ignores the startup registers but for static binaries the _start code in
> glibc expects r0 to contain a function pointer to be registered with
> atexit() in __libc_start_main() or NULL. Since we pass argc in there,
> for static binaries the rtld_fini argument to __libc_start_main() is
> neither NULL nor something meaningful.

The value left there by start_thread() will not reach the userland anyway...


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-10-15 19:01    [W:0.077 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site