Re: [PATCH resend] MIPS: Allow FPU emulator to use non-stack area.

[James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>]

On 07/10/14 12:53, James Hogan wrote:
> On 07/10/14 05:32, David Daney wrote:
>> If the kernel automatically allocated the emulation locations, what
>> would happen if there were a signal that interrupted the emulation, and
>> the signal handler did a longjump to somewhere else?  How would we clean
>> up the now unused emulation memory allocations?
> 
> AFAICT, Leonid's implementation also has this problem, and that has a
> separate stack of emuframes per thread managed completely by the kernel.
> 
> Essentially the kernel doesn't manage the stack, userland does, and
> userland can choose to skip over sigframes and emuframes with siglongjmp
> without telling the kernel.
> 
> Userland can even switch between contexts (which includes stack) with
> setcontext (coroutines etc) which breaks the assumption in Leonid's
> patches that emuframes will be completed in reverse order to them being
> started, again demonstrating that it is essentially userland that
> manages the stack.
> 
> I think any attempt by the kernel to keep track of user stacks (e.g. by
> storing a stack pointer along with the emuframe so that unused emuframes
> can be discarded later when stack pointer goes high again) will be
> foiled by setcontext.
> 
> Hmm, I can't see a way forward that doesn't involve invasive userland
> handling & ABI changes other than giving up with non-executable stacks
> or limiting permitted instructions in delay slots to those Linux knows
> how to emulate directly.

Would it work for a signal encountered during branch delay slot
emulation (maybe where the PC is pointing at that magic location the
kernel uses for emulation) to be treated as a return from emulation, but
leaving the user PC pointing to the original branch (with Cause.BD=1 I
suppose) prior to handling the signal, so that no more than one emuframe
is needed by each thread at a time?

Cheers
James