DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 delorie.com 52DNJnIr529966 Authentication-Results: delorie.com; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=cygwin.com Authentication-Results: delorie.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cygwin.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 delorie.com 52DNJnIr529966 Authentication-Results: delorie.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=cygwin.com header.i=@cygwin.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=xifNE5XD X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7EB5B3857B9F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com; s=default; t=1741907988; bh=+zLcrPYKJDKeezEdDTB5tYpPdOnLMgF6y6lMZje6qHk=; h=Date:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=xifNE5XDgkiF6A8V+OrWFUTAQZTzB/ZqBLfm7ytepWQP81WhsWQBCW51fg1JtsbE8 LDDBnOmxsjTsvGiLh5VKZ2mB95IlR92OsXXQt8cCzyaSPNp9jdyvmqF9KtZfYTp7gn l6epogxQgTjnFabvnXfXRrYsdHMeXsEtXC0o0dWI= X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 351203858D39 ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 351203858D39 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1741907925; cv=none; b=kLihKccn5/F1KLkCwt0g7s11La4VzFoEfG8VYqErUkVx2i6sNNigyLuASPkKMgP5YW6K22JrhTDkGf21Omd3w/vZtXq4YcmdrKyiBZqBIQJ0WEKCtf0hhsjaqZT4egr85vqNrocpanp82H0eFrg6RSfwizWghhACfLhGxm3kHRE= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1741907925; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CD6JuUi6umkm4Tmt3Buivvbes3TVLXMgLK/3g6f6RwM=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Mime-Version:DKIM-Signature; b=MWRgtuph8SWxcS3hVVlDIHqbEoOM7rbIUzDktcK4QrhVHvwkbfuS2jdWoI/0kgl/41kbfL0P3Km3I0pE9tu3ouT/h7X+5PHYoUFWrMYtWA8XVJ0HAwS5PVOOzBkNXilKYHD3OIlrLBzD3oLuJLScf5eCYJ/FdjZ54eCVW+Eizd0= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 351203858D39 Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 08:18:41 +0900 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: cygwin 3.6.0: No signals received after swapcontext() is used Message-Id: <20250314081841.18cabfbaf99daf6ecc3f8ab5@nifty.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: <20250314081236.bbdb1da7d746745925cdc752@nifty.ne.jp> References: <373993a3-9f0f-9750-60a0-950f83b3b0b5 AT t-online DOT de> <20250313204252 DOT e340f0de50838f161b0e8323 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> <20250313213148 DOT 6c2cb65f5e692005f28d3d2c AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> <20250314081236 DOT bbdb1da7d746745925cdc752 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Takashi Yano via Cygwin Reply-To: Takashi Yano Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: cygwin-bounces~archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com Sender: "Cygwin" On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 08:12:36 +0900 Takashi Yano wrote: > On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 23:46:49 +0100 > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Mar 13 17:30, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote: > > > On Mar 13 21:31, Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote: > > > > What about following patch instead of your sigdelayed patch? > > > > [...] > > > > @@ -1834,6 +1841,26 @@ _cygtls::call_signal_handler () > > > > signal handler. */ > > > > thisfunc (thissig, &thissi, thiscontext); > > > > > > > > + lock (); > > > > + if (stackptr == ptr) > > > > + push (retaddr1); > > > > + else if (stackptr == ptr + 1) > > > > + { > > > > + DWORD64 retaddr3 = pop(); > > > > + push (retaddr1); > > > > + push (retaddr3); > > > > + } > > > > + else if (stackptr == ptr - 1) > > > > + { > > > > + if (retaddr2) > > > > + push (retaddr2); > > > > + else > > > > + stackptr++; > > > > + } > > > > + else > > > > + api_fatal ("Signal stack corrupted?."); > > > > + unlock (); > > > > + > > > > > > This... looks confusing and desperately needs comments (or at least > > > I need comments). > > > > > > stackptr == ptr + 1 occurs if another signal arrived while the handler > > > was running, but isn't there a chance that sigdelayed has been pushed > > > as well, i.e., stackptr == ptr + 2? > > > > > > I have no idea how the stackptr == ptr - 1 situation is supposed to > > > happen, though. `else stackptr++;' looks weird. If you don't push a > > > known address, what do you expect retaddr() pointing to, afterwards? > > > > I have a slighty changed version. This one treats anything other > > than 0, 1 or 2 new addresses on the stack as bug. I really made > > an effort trying to come up with a situation where the signal > > stack underflows, but I just couldn't. If I'm missing something, > > please explain how this may happen. > > > > Apart from that, I attached my patch proposal. > > I think the following is the right thing. This version pulls return > addresses completely (not only one) before calling signal handler. Sorry, I forgot to mention why. In the next case, the previous patch consumes stack one. User code signal handler 1 signal ahndler 2 longjmp User code -- Takashi Yano -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple