lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: SIGSYS annoyance
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1176099
>>
>> Should SIGSYS be delivered to the handler even if blocked? What, if
>> anything, does POSIX say? All I can find is in pthread_sigmask(3p):
>>
>> If any of the SIGFPE, SIGILL, SIGSEGV, or SIGBUS signals are generated
>> while they are blocked, the result is undefined, unless the signal was
>> generated by the action of another process, or by one of the functions
>> kill(), pthread_kill(), raise(), or sigqueue().
>>
>> It would be easy enough to change our behavior so that we deliver the
>> signal even if it's blocked or to at least add a flag so that users
>> can request that behavior.
>
> I had trouble following that bug. It sounded like glib just needed a
> way to define its signal mask, and that's what they ended up
> implementing?
>
> I think the current behavior is correct. SIGSYS is being generated by
> the running process (i.e. the seccomp filter) and if it has a handler
> but the signal is blocked, we should treat it as uncaught and kill. On
> the other hand, it could be seen like "raise", in which case the
> blocking should be ignored? Is there an active problem somewhere here?
> It seems like the referenced bug has been fixed already.

Agreed.

It could make sense to have a new sigaction flag SA_FORCE: when set,
if a non-default handler is installed, the signal is blocked, and the
signal is triggered synchronously (forced), then the handler will be
called. But that isn't specific to seccomp.

--Andy

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-06-09 20:01    [W:0.049 / U:0.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site