X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=FRUosTD
	6xt8uHcYRWyruy/dQtOMATnHN92zG/MnmWLtBB6tTlbLfrXEBvl9vYWkg7AMVvar
	dfX4mv4PXSilUmLVrCIxBRNXF9xjwCiy7FpZgXvZs9WiLSrk4C1Q7Yqiu1OgYmvm
	+UU/I4wn1FD5BoBzIbiGUXm0jC5J6+ZAgfso=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:content-type; s=default; bh=Ok20sjsekSxNQ
	fEa++3YumpmVNA=; b=El7GovsS/sWI90EyGHwO5MzTT9VjvHCxKiUOb6usQzUqW
	ev/0glTGFz7Qvx0SRZ91IFUfiXXYHiuKsM/Lyni6DuxiLSqrzFeYlgBVSYaojPQc
	rM7DERl6EoAdxc9upQjq2wekCCoS+4bXLgAY1trRQhFftnUsV+p4JWF7WkK4Fg=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=wondered, wait!, personally, month
X-HELO:	mail-io1-f41.google.com
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ePyhyNYOIJZl10BwlRUwRPqMl+oBAs/Gm0yBLd8MjUk=; b=btfp6oy5SIrknoqc68byToMoMsrrF6a2t7bwjO3SMBKWXwG+J3w9Uylfgl5D9Pj8TW 9H7Yu5VmBUeqljwHK2nOZCcfIwjzZYeUTX0oJHCbETJpq9v4Cm+bF/LX6NDbuPjlr8ge +Bo5hb4IJ0bPhZ+HtfdS+VDh2HJ3heQe8xSQnxeKJZubHXWp+4Limk6s2BRXgT9qqG7x I4euKtCO/5nhMIjps4dkT3TprzG1ZrloYUgRYYY6JiLaOAYf2FKv2PELrYFgerYefCf8 hpMgV0iaxCGJHmeXaVylglxmUPiHxiMR+JHwgyMSIW1/DXjwbTR2yQaRh6lqb0zabnAY oWVA==
MIME-Version:	1.0
References:	<CAOTD34a-hdE0Jx=7HjB3CMYqgVr6m7Xo39YcmjeL0=43Opjkjg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20190227161712 DOT GB4133 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-Reply-To:	<20190227161712.GB4133@calimero.vinschen.de>
From:	"E. Madison Bray" <erik DOT m DOT bray AT gmail DOT com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Feb 2019 12:50:28 +0100
Message-ID:	<CAOTD34Y5F0cm7bVMiTYqA91tn7i9QZ_zLseMERmQnKp=MJqvqA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: Consider exposing mmap_is_attached_or_noreserve
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 5:17 PM Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> On Feb 27 16:38, E. Madison Bray wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > A very technical request regarding Cygwin internals: In mmap.c there
> > is a function mmap_is_attached_or_noreserve(void *addr, size_t len)
> > which is called from Cygwin's exception handler in the case of a
> > STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION.
> >
> > This is called in case an access violation occurs in memory that was
> > allocated with Cygwin's mmap() with the MAP_NORESERVE flag, and allows
> > us to commit the relevant pages when they are accessed.
> >
> > After a successful call of mmap_is_attached_or_noreserve(), the Cygwin
> > exception handler returns with ExceptionContinueExecution.
> > Unfortunately, if the application happens to have a Vectored Continue
> > Handler registered which happens to do something in the case of
> > STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION (see [1]) there is no obvious way to tell if
> > we're handling this sort of case.
> >
> > Normally this isn't too much of a problem: E.g. we could just check
> > the address that caused the access violation and see if its status is
> > now MEM_COMMIT (i.e. Cygwin ran its exception handler and all is
> > good).  However, due to the bug described in [1], if an exception
> > occurs in code running on a sigaltstack, the Cygwin exception handler
> > isn't run.
> >
> > This makes for a tricky to handle use case:  What if some code in a
> > signal handler function tries to access uncommitted memory in a
> > MAP_NORESERVE mmap?  It's probably an unusual, undesirable case, and I
> > haven't personally encountered it *yet*, but I could imagine some
> > cases where it might happen.
> >
> > In order to handle such a case it might be nice if
> > mmap_is_attached_or_noreserve were able to be called by user code,
> > perhaps as a new cygwin_internal(...) call.  I'd happily provide a
> > patch, but I fear this might be an X/Y problem that I'm not seeing.
>
> Honestly, I'm not overly keen to expose this stuff.  Wouldn't it
> make more sense to fix Cygwin's sigaltstack implementation to handle
> these cases gracefully?  You're apparently not shy working with
> Windows exception handling.  Patches more than welcome!  I'm not
> happy not having found a solution to this problem :}

I can theoretically imagine a case where might be a problem totally
outside the context of the altstack issue: e.g. maybe a cygwin
application that has to link with a native Windows DLL that happens to
register some vectored continue handler that does something with
STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION exceptions.  Of course, absent a real example
I wouldn't push for it.

I completely agree it would be better to have a solution to the actual  problem.

> Oh, wait!  Maybe there is a simple solution.  Patch 9a5abcc896bd
> added a single line
>
>   exception protect;
>
> to the pthread::thread_init_wrapper method.
>
> What if adding the same line to the altstack_wrapper function
> would help for altstack as well?

You know, I actually noticed this just recently, because I noticed
that pthreads also run on a stack allocated by Cygwin, and I wondered
how exception handling would work in that case.  I think I was looking
at it in the context of the thread last month that resulted in that
fix, but I forgot to ask you if this could work for the altstack issue
as well.

> Can you test this?

I'll give it a try and report back with a patch if it works.

The biggest risk is if a stack overflow happens while running on the
altstack--in this case even the Cygwin exception handling could fail
and the application will just crash.  But for other, less extreme
cases having this would be better than nothing.

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -