This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/5] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at nptl init and thread creation
- From: Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>
- To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu dot desnoyers at efficios dot com>
- Cc: carlos <carlos at redhat dot com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs dot nagy at arm dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix dot de>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer at fb dot com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead dot org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Boqun Feng <boqun dot feng at gmail dot com>, Will Deacon <will dot deacon at arm dot com>, Dave Watson <davejwatson at fb dot com>, Paul Turner <pjt at google dot com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, linux-api <linux-api at vger dot kernel dot org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 10:14:44 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/5] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at nptl init and thread creation
- References: <email@example.com> <20181122143603.GD23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <782067422.9852.1542899056778.JavaMail.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:04:16AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Nov 22, 2018, at 9:36 AM, Rich Felker email@example.com wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 01:39:32PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >> Register rseq(2) TLS for each thread (including main), and unregister
> >> for each thread (excluding main). "rseq" stands for Restartable
> >> Sequences.
> > Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but "unregister" does not seem to
> > be a meaningful operation. Can you clarify what it's for?
> There are really two ways rseq TLS can end up being unregistered: either
> through an explicit call to the rseq "unregister", or when the OS frees the
> thread's task struct.
> You bring an interesting point here: do we need to explicitly unregister
> rseq at thread exit, or can we leave that to the OS ?
> The key thing to look for here is whether it's valid to access the
> TLS area of the thread from preemption or signal delivery happening
> at the very end of START_THREAD_DEFN. If it's OK to access it until
> the very end of the thread lifetime, then we could do without an
> explicit unregistration. However, if at any given point of the late
> thread lifetime we end up in a situation where reading or writing to
> that TLS area can cause corruption, then we need to carefully
> unregister it before that memory is reclaimed/reused.
The thread memory cannot be reused until after kernel task exit,
reported via the set_tid_address futex. Also, assuming signals are
blocked (which is absolutely necessary for other reasons) nothing in
userspace can touch the rseq state after this point anyway.
I was more confused about the need for reference counting, though.
Where would anything be able to observe a state other than "refcnt>0"?
-- in which case tracking it makes no sense. If the goal is to make an
ABI thatsupports environments where libc doesn't have rseq support,
and a third-party library is providing a compatible ABI, it seems all
that would be needed it a boolean thread-local "is_initialized" flag.
There does not seem to be any safe way such a library could be
dynamically unloaded (which would require unregistration in all
threads) and thus no need for a count.