From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc: 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 <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@fb.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-api <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH glibc 1/3] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v18)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 12:55:54 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1972833271.77975.1588265754974.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <878sidkk0z.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
----- On Apr 30, 2020, at 12:36 PM, Florian Weimer fweimer@redhat.com wrote:
> * Mathieu Desnoyers:
>
[...]
>
>>>> + if (__rseq_abi.cpu_id == RSEQ_CPU_ID_REGISTRATION_FAILED)
>>>> + return;
>>>> + ret = INTERNAL_SYSCALL_CALL (rseq, &__rseq_abi, sizeof (struct rseq),
>>>> + 0, RSEQ_SIG);
>>>> + if (INTERNAL_SYSCALL_ERROR_P (ret) &&
>>>> + INTERNAL_SYSCALL_ERRNO (ret) != EBUSY)
>>>> + __rseq_abi.cpu_id = RSEQ_CPU_ID_REGISTRATION_FAILED;
>>>
>>> Sorry, I forgot: Please add a comment that the EBUSY error is ignored
>>> because registration may have already happened in a legacy library.
>>
>> Considering that we now disable signals across thread creation, and that
>> glibc's initialization happens before other libraries' constructors
>> (as far as I remember even before LD_PRELOADed library constructors),
>> in which scenario can we expect to have EBUSY here ?
>
> That's a good point.
>
>> Not setting __rseq_abi.cpu_id to RSEQ_CPU_ID_REGISTRATION_FAILED in case
>> of EBUSY is more a way to handle "unforeseen" scenarios where somehow the
>> registration would already be done. But I cannot find an "expected"
>> scenario which would lead to this now.
>>
>> So if EBUSY really is unexpected, how should we treat that ? I don't think
>> setting REGISTRATION_FAILED would be appropriate, because then it would
>> break assumption of the prior successful registration that have already
>> been done by this thread.
>
> You could call __libc_fatal with an error message. ENOSYS is definitely
> an expected error code here, and EPERM (and perhaps EACCES) can happen
> with seccomp filters.
If we go this way, I'd also recommend to treat any situation where
__rseq_abi.cpu_id is already initialized as a fatal error. Does the
code below seem OK to you ?
static inline void
rseq_register_current_thread (void)
{
int ret;
if (__rseq_abi.cpu_id != RSEQ_CPU_ID_UNINITIALIZED)
__libc_fatal ("rseq already initialized for this thread\n");
ret = INTERNAL_SYSCALL_CALL (rseq, &__rseq_abi, sizeof (struct rseq),
0, RSEQ_SIG);
if (INTERNAL_SYSCALL_ERROR_P (ret))
{
if (INTERNAL_SYSCALL_ERRNO (ret) == EBUSY)
__libc_fatal ("rseq already registered for this thread\n");
__rseq_abi.cpu_id = RSEQ_CPU_ID_REGISTRATION_FAILED;
}
}
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-30 16:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-28 17:15 [RFC PATCH glibc 1/3] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v18) Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-04-28 17:15 ` [RFC PATCH glibc 2/3] glibc: sched_getcpu(): use rseq cpu_id TLS on Linux (v7) Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-04-30 12:20 ` [RFC PATCH glibc 1/3] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v18) Florian Weimer
2020-04-30 16:11 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-04-30 16:36 ` Florian Weimer
2020-04-30 16:55 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2020-04-30 17:07 ` Florian Weimer
2020-04-30 17:20 ` 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=1972833271.77975.1588265754974.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com \
--to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=bmaurer@fb.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=carlos@redhat.com \
--cc=dalias@libc.org \
--cc=davejwatson@fb.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=szabolcs.nagy@arm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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