Svante Signell, le jeu. 24 janv. 2019 12:11:25 +0100, a ecrit: > I've built and installed glibc-2.28-5 with the patches in > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24110
Thanks! > threadinit-set-SS_DISABLE.patch and sigaltstack-set-SS_DISABLE.patch > with an equals sign in the first patch > ss->sigaltstack.ss_flags = SS_DISABLE; > not adding to the ss_flags as in Samuels patch > ss->sigaltstack.ss_flags |= SS_DISABLE; > > I don't know which version is the correct one! Please advise. Both would be correct actually, since the memset above sets it to 0. > However, the test programs works fine: foo.c gives: > > main-thread sigaltstack: enabled=no onstack=no sp=0x0 size=0x0 > alternate stack installed > main-thread sigaltstack: enabled=yes onstack=no sp=0x1ff9cdf size=0xa000 > thread2 running > thread2 sigaltstack: enabled=no onstack=no sp=0x0 size=0x0 > thread2 alternate stack installed > thread2 sigaltstack now: enabled=yes onstack=no sp=0x2ffbf7f size=0xa000 > main-thread sigaltstack: enabled=yes onstack=no sp=0x1ff9cdf size=0xa000 > SUPPORTED Good :) I'll commit the fix then. (I guess you tested that the same tests do fail with a non-patched glibc). > I've also run the libgo tests in gcc-9-9-20190120-1 and all 13 failing tests > returning "Illegal instruction (SIGILL)" now does not with the patched glibc. Great :) > However, all these tests are still failing, but now mainly with SIGABRT or > "signal 20 (SIGCHLD) received but handler not on signal stack" or "signal 30 > (SIGUSR1) received but handler not on signal stack". > > So I think there are still more bugs to hunt down. Yep, but there is most probably some progress here, and possibly it'll be easier to track down such explicit abort than a SIGILL from out of space. Samuel
