Re: [RFC PATCH glibc 11/12] hurd, htl: Add some x86_64-specific code

[Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org>]

Florian Weimer, le dim. 12 févr. 2023 20:29:43 +0100, a ecrit:
> * Samuel Thibault:
> 
> > Florian Weimer, le dim. 12 févr. 2023 17:40:58 +0100, a ecrit:
> >> * Samuel Thibault via Libc-alpha:
> >> 
> >> > Sergey Bugaev, le dim. 12 févr. 2023 19:25:11 +0300, a ecrit:
> >> >> On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 7:11 PM Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> >> > Sergey Bugaev, le dim. 12 févr. 2023 14:10:42 +0300, a ecrit:
> >> >> > > We should not need a getter routine, because one can simply inspect the target
> >> >> > > thread's state (unless, again, I misunderstand things horribly).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > For 16bit fs/gs values we could read them from userland yes. But for
> >> >> > fs/gs base, the FSGSBASE instruction is not available on all 64bit
> >> >> > processors. And ATM in THREAD_TCB we want to be able to get the base of
> >> >> > another thread.
> >> >> 
> >> >> What I've meant is:
> >> >> 
> >> >> __thread_get_state (whatever_thread, &state);
> >> >> uintptr_t its_fs_base = state->fs_base;
> >> >> 
> >> >> You can't really do the same to *write* [fg]s_base, because doing
> >> >> thread_set_state on your own thread is bound to end badly.
> >> >
> >> > ? Well, sure, just like setting fs/gs through thread state was not done
> >> > for i386.
> >> >
> >> > I don't see where you're aiming. Getting fs/gs from __thread_get_state
> >> > won't actually give you the base, you'll just read something like 0.
> >> 
> >> The convention is that the FSBASE address is at %fs:0.
> >
> > Yes, but that works only for reading your own base, not the base of
> > another thread.
> 
> Well, yes, but how do you identify the other thread?  Usually by the
> address of its TCB.

Yes, but that's not (yet) the case in htl.

Samuel