Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: vdso32: add CONFIG_THUMB2_COMPAT_VDSO

Nick Desaulniers
2020-06-09T23:55:44Z

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 1:35 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 01:57:08PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > index 7f9d38444d6d..fe9e6b231cac 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > @@ -1299,6 +1299,14 @@ config COMPAT_VDSO
> > You must have a 32-bit build of glibc 2.22 or later for programs
> > to seamlessly take advantage of this.
> >
> > +config THUMB2_COMPAT_VDSO
> > + bool "Compile the vDSO in THUMB2 mode"
> > + depends on COMPAT_VDSO
> > + default y
> > + help
> > + Compile the compat vDSO with -mthumb -fomit-frame-pointer if y, otherwise
> > + as -marm.
>
> Now that we understood the issue (I think), do we actually need this
> choice? Why not going for -mthumb -fomit-frame-pointer always for the
> compat vdso?

"Why should the compat vdso be configurable?" is a fair question. I
don't have an answer, but maybe some of the folks on thread do?

Our problem is more so "if the vdso is built as thumb, we need it also
explicitly built with -fomit-frame-pointer." Whether it should be
built as thumb, arm, or configurable (and which default to pick in
that case) are still an open questions. Will asked for it to be
configurable, so I sent a patch making it configurable.

I'm not sure what the tradeoffs would be for a A32 vs T32 compat vdso image.

Is it possible to have hardware that's A64+A32 but not T32, or A64+T32
but not A32? (I suspect not).

I'm not sure whether userspace cares about frame pointer based
unwinding through the vdso, but if it's built as THUMB, then that
likely doesn't work for binaries with A32/T32 interworking. Whether
the functions in the vdso are faster when built as A32 or T32 I cannot
say.
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers