This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 1/5] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v8)
- From: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot gcc at googlemail dot com>
- To: Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs dot Nagy at arm dot com>
- Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu dot desnoyers at efficios dot com>, nd <nd at arm dot com>, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Will Deacon <Will dot Deacon at arm dot com>, carlos <carlos at redhat dot com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat 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>, Dave Watson <davejwatson at fb dot com>, Paul Turner <pjt at google dot com>, Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, linux-api <linux-api at vger dot kernel dot org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 12:59:38 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v8)
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1770787324.668.1555530989646.JavaMail.email@example.com> <1066731871.915.1555593471194.JavaMail.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <1055153722.1072.1555602067220.JavaMail.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <604915684.1299.1555607449814.JavaMail.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <1531569198.1389.1555611422188.JavaMail.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 12:16 PM Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com> wrote:
> On 18/04/2019 19:17, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > ----- On Apr 18, 2019, at 1:37 PM, Szabolcs Nagy Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com wrote:
> >> you have to add a documentation comment somewhere
> >> explaining if RSEQ_SIG is the value that's passed to
> >> the kernel and then aarch64 asm code has to use
> >> .inst endianfixup(RSEQ_SIG) // or
> >> .word RSEQ_SIG
> > Using ".word" won't allow objdump to show the instruction it
> > maps to. It will consider it as data. So .inst is preferred here.
> is there some specific reason you prefer .inst?
I believe the reasoning here is that in the disassembly you want to
see an instruction pattern for an architecture rather than a magic bit
pattern that appears to be an "inline" literal pool entry. I would
support the .inst variant so that the disassembler shows the
instruction for what it is when debugging. If control reaches the
marker instruction, something's gone wrong and thus from a user
friendliness perspective I would prefer to see an instruction that
clearly indicates that it's undefined .inst directive so that someone
disassembling this in an assembly view in GDB sees the right thing
(TM) instead of having to reach for the manual and disassembling this
> disassembling a canary value as data (that is
> never executed, but loaded and compared by the
> kernel as data) sounds more semantically correct
> to me than showing it as an instruction.
> i guess having it as an instruction can avoid
> issues if some tools dislike .word in .text,
> but otherwise .word seems better.