Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/8] nolibc signal handling support

[Willy Tarreau]

On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 10:51:35AM +0700, Alviro Iskandar Setiawan wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 6:42 PM Ammar Faizi wrote:
> > On 12/28/22 8:35 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > It gives me the correct code for x86_64 and i586. I don't know if other
> > > architectures will want to add a prologue. I tried with "naked" but it's
> > > ignored by the compiler since the function is not purely asm. Not very
> > > important but given that we already have everything to perform our calls
> > > it would make sense to stay on this. By the way, for the sake of
> > > consistency with other syscalls, I do think the function (or label if
> > > we can't do otherwise) should be called "sys_rt_sigreturn" as it just
> > > performs a syscall.
> >
> > Will call that 'sys_rt_sigreturn' in the next series.
> 
> >From glibc source code says:
> GDB needs some intimate knowledge about it to recognize them as signal
> trampolines, and make backtraces through signal handlers work right.
> Important are both the names (__restore_rt) and the exact instruction
> sequence.
> 
> link: https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/sigaction.c;h=4e6d9cc32e1e18746726fa430d092de9a19ba6c6;hb=b4a5d26d8835d972995f0a0a2f805a8845bafa0b#l34
> 
> glibc does this:
> 
>    "    .type __" #name ",@function\n" \
>    "__" #name ":\n"                    \
>    "    movq $" #syscall ", %rax\n"    \
>    "    syscall\n"                     \
> 
> where
> 
>    #name = "restore_rt"
>    #syscall = __NR_rt_sigreturn
> 
> I think it should be called "__restore_rt" instead of "sys_rt_sigreturn"?
> glibc also has unwind information, but we probably don't need to care
> with that much

OK, I wasn't aware of this. Of course, if there are some strict rules
for this, let's follow them!

Thanks,
Willy