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: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu dot desnoyers at efficios dot com>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <codonell at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom at ascii dot art dot br>, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot ibm dot com>, Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>, Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com>, Michael Ellerman <mpe at ellerman dot id dot au>, 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>, gor <gor at linux dot ibm dot com>, schwidefsky <schwidefsky at de dot ibm dot com>, "Russell King, ARM Linux" <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: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 12:33:55 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v7)
- Dkim-filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail.efficios.com 7CE917DF49
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
----- On Apr 8, 2019, at 5:45 PM, Carlos O'Donell email@example.com wrote:
> On 4/8/19 3:20 PM, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote:
>> Carlos O'Donell <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>> On 4/5/19 5:16 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>> * Carlos O'Donell:
>>>>> 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
>>>> please elaborate?
>>> Sorry, I wasn't very clear.
>>> My point is only that any accidental jumps, either with off-by-one (like you
>>> fixed in gcc/glibc's signal unwinding most recently), result in a process fault
>>> rather than executing RSEQ_SIG as a valid instruction *and then* continuing
>>> onwards to the handler.
>>> A process fault is achieved either by a trap, or an invalid instruction, or
>>> a privileged insn (like suggested for MIPS in this thread).
>> In that case, mtmsr (Move to Machine State Register) seems a good candidate.
>> mtmsr is available both on 32 and 64 bits since their first implementations.
>> It's a privileged instruction and should never appear in userspace
>> code (causes SIGILL).
>> Any comments?
> That seems good to me.
> What's required to move this forward for POWER?
First, we need to decide whether we need rseq to support more than
one signature per process to cover the VLE extension. If so, we'd
need to extend rseq with a new flag for future kernels.
Then, ideally, we'd need a patch on top of the Linux kernel
tools/testing/selftests/rseq/rseq-ppc.h file that updates
the signature value. I think the current discussion leads us
towards a trap:
* TODO: document instruction objdump output on each architecture and VLE
* instruction sets.
#define RSEQ_SIG 0x0fe5000b
Should we do anything specific for big/little endian ? Is the byte order
of the instruction encoding the same as data ?