From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Carlos O'Donell <codonell@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and
 thread creation (v7)
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 11:40:16 -0400
Message-ID: <43f97ddb-c8df-27ea-9517-63252ebd3183@redhat.com>
References: <20190212194253.1951-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
 <20190212194253.1951-2-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
 <5166fbe9-cfe0-8554-abc7-4fc844cf2765@redhat.com>
 <1965431879.7576.1553529272844.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <87lg0tosfz.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
 <87pnq4zxyj.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
 <ce6f9db3-bf85-7aec-4bae-998e6fd629e1@redhat.com>
 <87y34o4xt3.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <87y34o4xt3.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>, Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>, Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, carlos <carlos@redhat.com>, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer@fb.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Dave
List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org

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).

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.