From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 509463858D1E for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 14:44:25 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 509463858D1E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1690987465; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=RdgjxEi78lj0CJ+n6n+sbTKNfwlhFF4hjmX7pbDIA5E=; b=Iat+Ti/x0ShNTvpPVG/GCDWFn18EAgrPc9uf7U1ZcxLcgVf5zn51c/nLviK4QpKcEyxdL9 Z7J7ATIU/NXQsgQtlF4ggZhBs+TgGv49GPyPOBmCLzWpwhVb9PbUMRjNlnEsh5X/pkcqdW svG4KhI6T76owvBk2Yufp8gbk6OLIhk= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-140-S9iEy9lnPbCh9ZUHHqwxTA-1; Wed, 02 Aug 2023 10:44:23 -0400 X-MC-Unique: S9iEy9lnPbCh9ZUHHqwxTA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49CDE801E80; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 14:44:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.2.16.9]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B25E6492CAC; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 14:44:21 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Adhemerval Zanella Netto Cc: Adhemerval Zanella via Libc-alpha , Carlos O'Donell Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] stdlib: Make abort AS-safe (BZ 26275) References: <20230731171900.4065501-1-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> <20230731171900.4065501-3-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> <87h6phyiz5.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2023 16:44:20 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Adhemerval Zanella Netto's message of "Wed, 2 Aug 2023 10:08:16 -0300") Message-ID: <87ttthqzaz.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.9 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: * Adhemerval Zanella Netto: >> I also don't quite understand why we need to take the abort lock in >> posix_spawn. There isn't any user code that can run in the same address >> space after the vfork. > > My understanding is the potential issues is if caller sets a SIG_IGN > for SIGABRT, calls abort, and another thread issues posix_spawn just > after the sigaction returns. With default options (not setting > POSIX_SPAWN_SETSIGDEF), the process can still see SIG_DFL for SIGABRT, > where it should be SIG_IGN. Right, I missed that. Maybe add a comment? Thanks, Florian