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: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, carlos <carlos 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 10:44:57 -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> <email@example.com> <20181122151710.GF23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1306224240.10055.1542900799576.JavaMail.email@example.com>
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:33:19AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Nov 22, 2018, at 10:21 AM, Florian Weimer firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > * Rich Felker:
> >> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 04:11:45PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>> * Mathieu Desnoyers:
> >>> > Thoughts ?
> >>> >
> >>> > /* Unregister rseq TLS from kernel. */
> >>> > if (has_rseq && __rseq_unregister_current_thread ())
> >>> > abort();
> >>> >
> >>> > advise_stack_range (pd->stackblock, pd->stackblock_size, (uintptr_t) pd,
> >>> > pd->guardsize);
> >>> >
> >>> > /* If the thread is detached free the TCB. */
> >>> > if (IS_DETACHED (pd))
> >>> > /* Free the TCB. */
> >>> > __free_tcb (pd);
> >>> Considering that we proceed to free the TCB, I really hope that all
> >>> signals are blocked at this point. (I have not checked this, though.)
> >>> Wouldn't this address your concern about access to the rseq area?
> >> I'm not familiar with glibc's logic here, but for other reasons, I
> >> don't think freeing it is safe until the kernel task exit futex (set
> >> via clone or set_tid_address) has fired. I would guess __free_tcb just
> >> sets up for it to be reclaimable when this happens rather than
> >> immediately freeing it for reuse.
> > Right, but in case of user-supplied stacks, we actually free TLS memory
> > at this point, so signals need to be blocked because the TCB is
> > (partially) gone after that.
> Unfortuntately, disabling signals is not enough.
> With rseq registered, the kernel accesses the rseq TLS area when returning to
> user-space after _preemption_ of user-space, which can be triggered at any
> point by an interrupt or a fault, even if signals are blocked.
> So if there are cases where the TLS memory is freed while the thread is still
> running, we _need_ to explicitly unregister rseq beforehand.
OK, that makes sense. I was wrongly under the impression that the TLS
memory could not be reused until the task exit futex fired, but in
glibc that's not the case with caller-provided stacks.
I still don't understand the need for a reference count though.