В Sun, 25 Jan 2015 03:37:09 +0100
"Tomasz Pawlak" <toma...@wp.pl> пишет:
> core/main.c:1519
> /* Make sure we leave a core dump without panicing the
> * kernel. */
> if (getpid() == 1) {
> install_crash_handler();
>
> r = mount_cgroup_controllers(arg_join_controllers);
> if (r < 0)
> goto finish;
> }
>
> core/main.c:226
> static void install_crash_handler(void) {
> struct sigaction sa = {
> .sa_handler = crash,
> .sa_flags = SA_NODEFER,
> };
>
> sigaction_many(&sa, SIGNALS_CRASH_HANDLER, -1);
> }
>
> /shared/util.c:2207
> int sigaction_many(const struct sigaction *sa, ...) {
> va_list ap;
> int r = 0, sig;
>
> va_start(ap, sa);
> while ((sig = va_arg(ap, int)) > 0)
> if (sigaction(sig, sa, NULL) < 0)
> r = -errno;
> va_end(ap);
>
> return r;
> }
>
> shared/def.h:40
> #define SIGNALS_CRASH_HANDLER SIGSEGV,SIGILL,SIGFPE,SIGBUS,SIGQUIT,SIGABRT
>
>
> BUGS:
> 1. Ignoring return value from sigaction_many(): all sig handlers can silently
> fail to install, thus leaving the whole process unprotected
What do you suggest to do in this case? We are running as PID1, we
cannot just error exit.
>
> 2. SIGSEGV should be catched by a handler running on a separate stack
> (SA_ONSTACK) - otherwise it can cause segfault itself, when the first SIGSEGV
> which triggered the handler is caused by stack overflow.
>
> 3. SA_NODEFER makes no sense, since the handler is expected to catch only
> first critical signal. With SA_NODEFER nesting of signals is possible, what
> can cause unpredictable results, including uncatched stack overflow caused by
> the handler itself.
>
> Regards.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> systemd-devel mailing list
> systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
