public inbox for libc-alpha@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
Cc: Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>,
	GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
	nd@arm.com, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>,
	Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>,
	Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com>,
	James Greenhalgh <James.Greenhalgh@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] nptl: change default stack guard size of threads
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 21:02:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <00c123b5-dd46-6777-2c24-d80eae8d35df@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171129205148.GG1627@brightrain.aerifal.cx>

On 11/29/2017 09:51 PM, Rich Felker wrote:

> I'm not sure I follow, but from the standpoint of virtual address
> space and what is an acceptable cost in wasted address space, any
> ILP32-on-64 ABIs should be considered the same as 32-bit archs. As
> such, I think GCC really needs to do the stack probe every 4k, not
> 64k, and the default (and certainly minimum-supported) guard size
> should be kept at 4k, not 64k or anything larger.

Yes, and I expect that we will keep using 4 KiB probing on i386 (and 
s390/s390x).  That's what Jeff gave me for testing.  I do hope the final 
upstream version isn't going to be different in this regard.

But in the end, this is up to the machine maintainers (for gcc and glibc).

>> We can throw new code at this problem and solve it for 64-bit.  For
>> 32-bit, we simply do not have a universally applicable solution.  My
>> understanding was that everywhere except on ARM, GCC was compatible
>> with the pioneering glibc/Linux work in this area (the guard page we
>> added to thread stacks, and the guard page added by the kernel).  If
>> this isn't the case, then I'm really disappointed in the disregard
>> of existing practice on the GCC side.
> 
> Hm? What are you thinking of that GCC might have gotten wrong?

Use 64 KiB probe intervals (almost) everywhere as an optimization.  I 
assumed the original RFC patch was motivated by that.

I knew that ARM would be broken because that's what the gcc ARM 
maintainers want.  I assumed that it was restricted to that, but now I'm 
worried that it's not.

Thanks,
Florian

  reply	other threads:[~2017-11-29 21:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-11-29 14:59 Szabolcs Nagy
2017-11-29 15:18 ` Florian Weimer
2017-11-29 18:17   ` Carlos O'Donell
2017-11-29 18:29     ` Rich Felker
2017-11-29 20:33       ` Florian Weimer
2017-11-29 18:40   ` Szabolcs Nagy
2017-11-29 20:44     ` Florian Weimer
2017-11-29 20:52       ` Rich Felker
2017-11-29 21:02         ` Florian Weimer [this message]
2017-11-29 23:13           ` Szabolcs Nagy
2017-12-05 10:55           ` James Greenhalgh
2017-12-06 12:51             ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-11 23:49             ` Jeff Law
2017-12-12 11:43               ` Szabolcs Nagy
2017-12-12 16:36                 ` Rich Felker
2017-12-12 18:07                   ` Szabolcs Nagy
2017-12-12 19:30               ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-13 11:58                 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2017-12-19 12:35             ` James Greenhalgh
2017-12-19 13:06               ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-19 18:21                 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2017-12-19 20:34                   ` Rich Felker
2017-12-20  4:42                     ` Jeff Law
2017-12-20  4:49                       ` Rich Felker
2017-12-27 13:08                         ` Wilco Dijkstra
2017-12-20  4:45                 ` Jeff Law
2017-11-29 22:28       ` Wilco Dijkstra
2017-11-29 22:38         ` Carlos O'Donell
2017-12-06 12:53           ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-06 13:10             ` Wilco Dijkstra
2017-12-06 13:13               ` Florian Weimer
2017-11-29 23:02         ` Rich Felker
2017-12-06 13:16         ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-06 13:40           ` Joseph Myers
2017-12-06 13:51             ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-06 14:44             ` Jeff Law
2017-12-06 14:27           ` Wilco Dijkstra
2017-12-06 20:41             ` Szabolcs Nagy
2017-12-06 21:24               ` Adhemerval Zanella
2017-12-06 22:08               ` Rich Felker
2017-12-08 18:28                 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2017-11-29 22:45       ` Szabolcs Nagy

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=00c123b5-dd46-6777-2c24-d80eae8d35df@redhat.com \
    --to=fweimer@redhat.com \
    --cc=James.Greenhalgh@arm.com \
    --cc=Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com \
    --cc=Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com \
    --cc=dalias@libc.org \
    --cc=law@redhat.com \
    --cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
    --cc=nd@arm.com \
    --cc=szabolcs.nagy@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;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).