[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC PATCH] test-c-stack2.sh: skip if the platform sent SIGILL on an
From: |
Dmitry V. Levin |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC PATCH] test-c-stack2.sh: skip if the platform sent SIGILL on an invalid address. |
Date: |
Sat, 29 Dec 2018 17:31:40 +0300 |
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 02:31:11PM +0300, Andrey Savchenko wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 12:17:32 +0100 Bruno Haible wrote:
> > > As for the SIGILL peculiarity, it has a reason in the Elbrus
> > > architecture.
> > > ...
> > > And it's not a segmentation fault.
> >
> > I believe you should make it signal a SIGSEGV or SIGBUS, not SIGILL, for
> > the following reasons:
> >
> > * Look at the second table in
> > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/signal.h.html.
> > It defines a couple of signal codes for SIGILL, SIGSEGV, and SIGBUS.
> > It implies that SIGILL means an invalid instruction (and "illegal operand"
> > means an invalid operand that is in the instruction stream).
> > Whereas SIGSEGV and SIGBUS mean a problem with an instruction in
> > combination
> > with a memory address.
> >
> > * The main users of SIGSEGV and SIGBUS are catching stack overflow, garbage
> > collection, and similar (e.g. by use of GNU libsigsegv). The fact that
> > you observe an incompatibility between your Linux adaptation and
> > application programs that work fine across Linux/BSD/AIX/Solaris is a sure
> > indication that you will encounter similar incompatibilities along the
> > lines,
> > until you fix that port, to produce SIGSEGV or SIGBUS instead of SIGILL.
>
> This is not possible. Four generations of hardware are already
> manufactured and they use SIGILL for such cases. It may be fixed in
> future generations if CPU designers will agree to do so, but we
> have to deal with already produced and used in production hardware.
It's all up to the kernel what signal to generate in response
to that particular non-SIGSEGV kind of trap.
I agree with Bruno here, as long as the code in question causes SIGILL,
the architecture is not compatible and its users will suffer more
because of this unneeded incompatibility.
--
ldv
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- [RFC PATCH] test-c-stack2.sh: skip if the platform sent SIGILL on an invalid address., Ivan Zakharyaschev, 2018/12/15
- Re: [RFC PATCH] test-c-stack2.sh: skip if the platform sent SIGILL on an invalid address., Bruno Haible, 2018/12/19
- Re: [RFC PATCH] test-c-stack2.sh: skip if the platform sent SIGILL on an invalid address., Ivan Zakharyaschev, 2018/12/28
- Re: [RFC PATCH] test-c-stack2.sh: skip if the platform sent SIGILL on an invalid address., Ivan Zakharyaschev, 2018/12/29
- Re: [RFC PATCH] test-c-stack2.sh: skip if the platform sent SIGILL on an invalid address., Dmitry V. Levin, 2018/12/29
- Re: [RFC PATCH] test-c-stack2.sh: skip if the platform sent SIGILL on an invalid address., Ivan Zakharyaschev, 2018/12/29
- Re: [RFC PATCH] test-c-stack2.sh: skip if the platform sent SIGILL on an invalid address., Bruno Haible, 2018/12/29
- Re: [RFC PATCH] test-c-stack2.sh: skip if the platform sent SIGILL on an invalid address., Bruno Haible, 2018/12/29
- Re: [RFC PATCH] test-c-stack2.sh: skip if the platform sent SIGILL on an invalid address., Dmitry V. Levin, 2018/12/29
- Re: [RFC PATCH] test-c-stack2.sh: skip if the platform sent SIGILL on an invalid address., Ivan Zakharyaschev, 2018/12/29