Re^2: Using sigvec & sigcontext

[Guy Harris]

>I said same contents, not same type.  A close look at setjmp will reveal that
>is only uses the first seven longwords of the jmp_buf, for exactly the values
>shown above.  A comment even says "# construct sigcontext"!  jmp_buf is
>probably only declared as an array, so people don't have to take the address
>themselves.

Well, it's declared as an array because it antedates "struct
sigcontext", because it was done that way in good old V7, and because
you're supposed to use the name of the "jmp_buf" in calls to "setjmp",
which means that, since C generally supports call-by-value, the value
had better be a pointer into the "jmp_buf", which means that (unless
"setjmp" is a macro - which the dpANS for C says it must be - *and*
inserts the "&" for you), "jmp_buf" must be an array (in fact, said
dpANS says it's an array).

>> 139 is (was) the `sigcleanup' syscall, used in 4.2BSD to exit from
>> signal handlers, and indeed undocumented.  It did not take *any*
>> arguments; rather, it found a sigcontext structure via the user stack
>> pointer pushed by the `chmk' trap, an awful and bloody thing to do,
>> which is of course why it was fixed in 4.3BSD....
>
>You are right about the argument passing.  It does, however, look the same
>from user code.  Code like
>
>	pushl	<addr of sigcontext or a jmp_buf>
>	chmk	$139
>
>will do a longjmp (without restoring register contents, as 4.[23]
>longjmp does).

Which isn't quite the same as "finding the structure via the user stack
pointer pushed by the 'chmk' trap"; I read that as meaning that no
explicit argument is provided, and that the structure is assumed to be
at a specific location on the stack.  Instead, "syscall 139" *does* take
an argument; it just happens to be passed a little differently.

Given that neither it nor "sigreturn" are, in general, usable from
machine-independent code ("sigreturn" doesn't load up all the registers,
which means you need machine-dependent glue around it anyway, if you
want something that amounts to a "machine-independent user-mode context
switch" call), I don't see this as being particularly awful or bloody.

There *was* some problem with the 4.2BSD "syscall 139"; I don't remember
what it was, but as I remember it did *not* exist in the SunOS "syscall
139".

>Syscall 139 still exists in the 4.3 I use (MORE/bsd), even though it isn't
>listed in sysent.  Look in the top of syscall().  That is an awful and bloody
>thing to do too.  Was it left in only because of longjmp(), which is able to
>use sigreturn() instead (more awful and bloody code), or because other
>programs depended on it (even more awful and bloody)? 

"longjmp" in 4.3 *does* use "sigreturn".  I presume it was left in so
that 4.2BSD binaries would continue to run.

>I haven't got sources to SunOS 4.0, but it look like it uses the 4.2 scheme.
>It has sigcleanup listed as syscall 139 in sysent, taking no arguments.  The
>code for sigcleanup looks similar, fetching a sigcontext pointer from the user
>stack, followed by a copyin of the necessary parts of the sigcontext, and
>assignment to the saved registers in the user structure.  SunOS hasn't got
>sigreturn either, so those parts of the kernel might be from 4.2.

SunOS doesn't have "sigreturn" because it didn't need it; as indicated,
"sigreturn" isn't a machine-independent interface to a general "context
switch" function, and since making such a function out of "sigreturn"
would require additional machine-language glue to load up the other
registers anyway, it wasn't deemed worth adding as a "real" system call. 
That part of the kernel isn't from 4.2, though, except on those versions
of SunOS 3.0 ported to the VAX - neither VAX nor Tahoe code works as is
on the 68K, the 80386, or the SPARC....