Re: [regression] x86/signal/64: Fix SS handling for signals delivered to 64-bit programs breaks dosemu

From: Andy Lutomirski
Date: Wed Aug 12 2015 - 17:38:07 EST

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 12.08.2015 23:47, Andy Lutomirski ÐÐÑÐÑ:
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 12.08.2015 23:28, Andy Lutomirski ÐÐÑÐÑ:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> 12.08.2015 23:01, Andy Lutomirski ÐÐÑÐÑ:
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> 12.08.2015 22:20, Andy Lutomirski ÐÐÑÐÑ:
>>>>>>>> current kernels, it stays switched. If we change this, it won't
>>>>>>>> stay
>>>>>>>> switched. Even ignoring old ABI, it's not really clear to me what
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> right thing to do is.
>>>>>>> There can be the following cases:
>>>>>>> - switch_userspace_thread() switches fs to non-zero selector
>>>>>>> - switch_userspace_thread() switches the fs base via syscall
>>>>>>> - switch_userspace_thread() switches fs in sigcontext
>>>>>>> - switch_userspace_thread() switches fs_base in sigcontext (???)
>>>>>>> What exactly case do you have in mind?
>>>>>>> I'd say, the way x86_32 is doing things - is good, but the
>>>>>>> bases... perhaps, in ideal world, they should be a part of
>>>>>>> the sigcontext as well?
>>>>>> Any of the above. What do you want the kernel to do, and how does the
>>>>>> kernel know you want to do that? The kernel has to pick *some*
>>>>>> semantics here.
>>>>> Assuming the bases are made the part of a sigcontext,
>>>>> I'd say there would be no ambiguities remained at all:
>>>>> whatever you change in a sigcontext, will be "applied" by
>>>>> the sigreturn(). Whatever you put in the registers
>>>>> (either segregs or MSRs), is valid until sigreturn(), then
>>>>> forgotten forever.
>>>>> The mess only comes in when some things are part of
>>>>> sigcontext and some are not. But if you have _all_ things
>>>>> accessable in sigcontext, then the user has a way of expressing
>>>>> his needs very clearly: he'll either touch sigcontext or direct
>>>>> values, depending on what he need.
>>>>> Is this right?
>>>> Maybe, except that doing this might break existing code (Wine and Java
>>>> come to mind). I'm not really sure.
>>> Yes, but that's why I was talking about some new
>>> flag. Maybe a new sigaction() flag? Or something else that
>>> will allow the user to request explicitly the new handling
>>> where the things are all switched by the kernel. Then
>>> the old programs that don't use that flag, will remain
>>> unaffected. I realize this may be a lot of work... But please
>>> note that there will be no more a chance like this one,
>>> when things are already badly broken. :)
>> I think that, with my patch, we get the best of both worlds. We keep
>> the old behavior in cases where it would work, and we switch to the
>> new behavior in cases where the old behavior would result in killing
>> the task.
> But I mean also fs/TLS.
> There is a chance now to fix things for good, all at once. :)
> With such an ss patch applied to stable, there will be no more
> such a chance ever. What's your opinion on the possibility of
> fixing the TLS problem?
> Also I am not sure about the sigreturn()'s detection: is it
> a subject of the subsequent patch, or you dropped an idea?

I think these things shouldn't be conflated. If we can fix it
transparently (i.e. if my patch works), then I think we should do
something like my patch.


Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at