lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH for 4.21 01/16] rseq/selftests: Add reference counter to coexist with glibc
From
Date
On 11/10/18 20:42, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Oct 11, 2018, at 1:04 PM, Szabolcs Nagy Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/18 17:37, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>> ----- On Oct 11, 2018, at 12:20 PM, Szabolcs Nagy Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/18 16:13, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>>> ----- On Oct 11, 2018, at 6:37 AM, Szabolcs Nagy Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/10/18 20:19, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>>>>> +__attribute__((visibility("hidden"))) __thread
>>>>>>> +volatile struct libc_rseq __lib_rseq_abi = {
>>>>>> ...
>>>> but it's in a magic struct that's called "abi" which is confusing,
>>>> the counter is not abi, it's in a hidden object.
>>>
>>> No, it is really an ABI between user-space apps/libs. It's not meant to be
>>> hidden. glibc implements its own register/unregister functions (it does not
>>> link against librseq). librseq exposes register/unregister functions as public
>>> APIs. Those also use the refcount. I also plan to have existing libraries, e.g.
>>> liblttng-ust and possibly liburcu flavors, implement the
>>> registration/unregistration and refcount handling on their own, so we don't
>>> have to add a requirement on additional linking on librseq for pre-existing
>>> libraries.
>>>
>>> So that refcount is not an ABI between kernel and user-space, but it's a
>>> user-space ABI nevertheless (between program and shared objects).
>>>
>>
>> if that's what you want, then your declaration is wrong.
>> the object should not have hidden visibility.
>
> Actually, if we look closer into my patch, it defines two symbols,
> one of which is an alias:
>
> __attribute__((visibility("hidden"))) __thread
> volatile struct libc_rseq __lib_rseq_abi = {
> .cpu_id = RSEQ_CPU_ID_UNINITIALIZED,
> };
>
> extern __attribute__((weak, alias("__lib_rseq_abi"))) __thread
> volatile struct rseq __rseq_abi;
>
> Note that the public __rseq_abi symbol is weak but does not have
> hidden visibility. I do this to ensure I don't get prototype
> mismatch for __rseq_abi between rseq.c and rseq.h (it is required
> to be a struct rseq by rseq.h), but I want the space to hold the
> extra refcount field present in struct libc_rseq.
>

but that's wrong: the weak symbol might get resolved to
a different object in another module, while you increment
a local refcounter, so there is no coordination between
userspace components.

this was the reason for my first question in my original mail,
as soon as i saw the local counter i suspected this is broken.

and "assume there is an extra counter field" is not
acceptable as user space abi, if the counter is relevant
across modules then expose the entire struct.

>> either the struct should be public abi (extern tls
>> symbol) or the register/unregister functions should
>> be public abi (so when multiple implementations are
>> present in the same process only one of them will
>> provide definition for the public abi symbol and
>> thus there will be one refcounter).
>
> Those are two possible solutions, indeed. Considering that
> we already need to expose the __rseq_abi symbol as a public
> ABI in a way that ensures that multiple implementations
> in a same process end up only using one of them, it seems
> straightforward to simply extend that structure and hold the
> refcount there, rather than having two extra ABI symbols
> (register/unregister functions).
>
> One very appropriate question here is whether we want to
> expose the layout of struct libc_rseq (which includes the
> refcount) in a public header file, and if so, which project
> should hold it ? Or do we just want to document the layout
> of this ABI so projects can define the structure layout
> internally ? As my implementation currently stands, I have
> the following structure duplicated into rseq selftests,
> librseq, and glibc:
>

"not exposed" and "the counter is abi" together is not
useful, either you want coordination in user-space or
not, that decision should imply the userspace abi/api
(e.g. adding a counter to the user-space struct).

it is true that only modules that implement registration
need to know about the counter and normal users don't,
but if you want any coordination then the layout must
be fixed and that should be exposed somewhere to avoid
breakage.

(i think ideally the api would be controlled by functions
and not object symbols with magic layout, but the rseq
design is already full of such magic. and i think it's
better to do the registration in libc only without
coordination but that might not be practical if users
want it now)

> /*
> * linux/rseq.h defines struct rseq as aligned on 32 bytes. The kernel ABI
> * size is 20 bytes. For support of multiple rseq users within a process,
> * user-space defines an extra 4 bytes field as a reference count, for a
> * total of 24 bytes.
> */
> struct libc_rseq {
> /* kernel-userspace ABI. */
> __u32 cpu_id_start;
> __u32 cpu_id;
> __u64 rseq_cs;
> __u32 flags;
> /* user-space ABI. */
> __u32 refcount;
> } __attribute__((aligned(4 * sizeof(__u64))));
>
> That duplicated structure only needs to be present in early-adopter
> applications/libraries. Those linking on librseq or relying on newer
> glibc to register rseq don't need to know about this extended layout:
> all they need to care about is the layout of struct rseq (without the
> added refcount).

please decide if you want multiple libraries to
be able to register rseq and coordinate or not
and document that decision in the public api.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-12 12:01    [W:0.054 / U:1.192 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site