Re: SIGFPE handler is naive

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Nils Goroll <slink(at)schokola(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SIGFPE handler is naive
Date: 2012-08-14 21:46:49
Message-ID: 13981.1344980809@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 08:40:06AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
>>> It is possible to check if the signal was synchronous or was sent from
>>> an external process. You can check siginfo->si_pid to see who sent you
>>> the signal. I'm not sure checking that and handling it at
>>> check_for_interrupts if it's asynchronous is the best solution or not
>>> though.

>> If that's portable it might be an option, but I doubt that it is.

> I suspect it is portable.

Single Unix Spec V2 says (on the sigaction man page)

The si_code member contains a code identifying the cause of the
signal. If the value of si_code is less than or equal to 0, then the
signal was generated by a process and si_pid and si_uid respectively
indicate the process ID and the real user ID of the sender.

I'm not sure I would trust checking si_pid alone; it would definitely
fail on my old HPUX box, where I see that field is union'ed with si_addr
and so will read as garbage for a locally-sourced SIGFPE. But it might
be that checking si_code alone would work reliably.

I think that rejecting an externally sourced SIGFPE might be worth doing
if we can distinguish that reliably.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2012-08-14 21:49:11 Re: -Wformat-zero-length
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2012-08-14 21:41:09 Re: GetSnapshotData() comments