This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 1/4] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v7)
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <codonell at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe at ellerman dot id dot au>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu dot desnoyers at efficios dot com>, Paul Burton <paul dot burton at mips dot com>, Will Deacon <will dot deacon at arm dot com>, Boqun Feng <boqun dot feng at gmail dot com>, Heiko Carstens <heiko dot carstens at de dot ibm dot com>, Vasily Gorbik <gor at linux dot ibm dot com>, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky at de dot ibm dot com>, Russell King <linux at armlinux dot org dot uk>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh at kernel dot crashing dot org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus at samba dot org>, 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>, 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: Fri, 05 Apr 2019 11:16:08 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v7)
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <1965431879.7576.1553529272844.JavaMail.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
* Carlos O'Donell:
> On 4/2/19 3:08 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Michael Ellerman:
>>> I'm a bit vague on what we're trying to do here.
>>> But it seems like you want some sort of "eye catcher" prior to the branch?
>>> That value is a valid instruction on current CPUs (rlwimi.
>>> r5,r24,6,1,9), and even if it wasn't it could become one in future.
>>> If you change it to 0x8053530 that is both a valid instruction and is a
>>> nop (conditional trap immediate but with no conditions set).
>> I think we need something that is very unlikely to appear in the
>> instruction stream. It's just a marker. The instruction will never be
>> executed, and it does not have to be a trap, either (I believe that a
>> standard trap instruction would be a bad choice).
> I assume you want to avoid a standard trap instruction because it would
> be common, and so not meet the intent of the RSEQ_SIG choice as being something
> that is *uncommon* right?
Ideally, RSEQ_SIG would be something that does not show up in the
instruction stream at all, so that it is a reliable marker for the start
of an rseq handler. I assume the intent here is that the kernel
provides some validation on the program counter it reads from the rseq
area, so that we do not end up with some easily-abused gadget in every
> It is valuable that it be a trap, particularly for constant pools because
> it means that a jump into the constant pool will trap.
Sorry, I don't understand why this matters in this context. Would you