From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
paulmck <paulmck@kernel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
linux-api <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
carlos <carlos@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rseq: x86: implement abort-at-ip extension
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2022 14:48:55 -0500 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1968088162.13310.1641584935813.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87a6g7ny0j.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
----- On Jan 7, 2022, at 2:31 PM, Florian Weimer fw@deneb.enyo.de wrote:
> * Mathieu Desnoyers:
>
>> Allow rseq critical section abort handlers to optionally figure out at
>> which instruction pointer the rseq critical section was aborted.
>>
>> This allows implementing rseq critical sections containing loops, in
>> which case the commit side-effect cannot be the last instruction. This
>> is useful to implement adaptative mutexes aware of preemption in
>> user-space. (see [1])
>
> Could you write the program counter to the rseq area instead? This
> would avoid discussing which register to clobber.
Using the rseq area for that purpose would be problematic for nested signal
handlers with rseq critical sections. If a signal happens to be delivered
right after the abort ip adjustment, its signal handler containing a rseq
critical section could overwrite the relevant "abort-at-ip" field in the
rseq per-thread area before it has been read by the abort handler interrupted
by the signal.
Making this architecture-agnostic is indeed a laudable goal, but I don't
think the rseq per-thread area is a good fit for this.
I also though about making the clobbered register configurable on a
per-critical-section basis, but I rather think that it would be
overengineered: too much complexity for the gain. Unless there are
very strong reasons for choosing one register over another on a per
use-case basis ?
I guess if we ever care about the state of a given register within a given
range of instructions, we may lose that information if it is overwritten
by the abort-at-ip value. For instance, in my adaptative mutex prototype,
I use the Zero Flag to check if cmpxchg has succeeded. But if I would have
wanted to use the register modified by cmpxchg, and it would happen to be
clobbered by the abort-at-ip on abort, then it limits what the abort handler
can observe. It's fine as long as instructions can select what registers they
operate on, but instructions like cmpxchg AFAIR work on specific registers,
which might warrant making the abort-at-ip register configurable per
critical section. But maybe just choosing a register for abort-at-ip which
is not typically used by instructions that rely on hardcoded registers might
be sufficient.
Thoughts ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-07 19:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-07 17:03 [RFC PATCH] rseq: x86: implement abort-at-ip extension Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-01-07 19:31 ` Florian Weimer
2022-01-07 19:48 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2022-01-07 21:27 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-01-07 22:27 ` David Laight
2022-01-08 1:08 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-01-08 1:33 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-01-08 1:33 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-01-12 15:16 ` Florian Weimer
2022-01-12 15:26 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-01-12 15:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-01-12 16:00 ` Florian Weimer
2022-01-12 16:38 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2022-01-12 21:00 ` Florian Weimer
2022-01-12 21:24 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1968088162.13310.1641584935813.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com \
--to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=carlos@redhat.com \
--cc=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
--cc=fw@deneb.enyo.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).