This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 1/4] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v7)

On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 02:23:53PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> I'd much rather we use a trap with a specific immediate value. Otherwise
> someone's going to waste time one day puzzling over why userspace is
> doing mtmsr.

It's data.  We have other data in executable sections.  Anyone who
wonders about odd disassembly just hasn't realized they are
disassembling data.

> It would also complicate things if we ever wanted to emulate mtmsr.

No, because it won't be executed.  If I understand correctly, the only
reason to choose an illegal, trap or privileged insn is to halt
execution earlier rather than later when a program goes off in the

> If we want something that is a trap rather than a nop then use 0x0fe50553.
> That's "compare the value in r5 with 0x553 and then trap unconditionally".
> It shows up in objdump as:
>     10000000:	53 05 e5 0f 	twui    r5,1363
> The immediate can be anything, I chose that value to mimic the x86 value
> Mathieu mentioned.
> There's no reason that instruction would ever be generated because the
> immediate value serves no purpose. So it satisfies the "very unlikely
> to appear" criteria AFAICS.

Yes, looks fine to me, except that in VLE mode (do we care?)
".long 0x0fe50553" disassembles as
   0:	0f e5       	se_cmphl r5,r30
   2:	05 53       	se_mullw r3,r5
No illegal/trap/privileged insn there.

".long 0x0fe5000b" might be better to cover VLE.

Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]