From: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
James Greenhalgh <james.greenhalgh@arm.com>,
nd@arm.com, GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>,
Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] nptl: change default stack guard size of threads
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 04:42:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5194e219-78fd-80a0-e91a-9af7ac86dbe0@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171219203401.GT1627@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
On 12/19/2017 01:34 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 06:21:32PM +0000, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>> On 19/12/17 13:06, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2017 01:34 PM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Option 1: 64k guard pages for LP64 on AArch64.
>>>
>>>> Option 2: 4k guard pages for LP64 for AArch64
>>>
>>>> Our proposal then, having spoken things through with the Arm engineers
>>>> here, and taken in to consideration the opinions on this thread, is that
>>>> we move to two "blessed" configurations of the GCC support for AArch64.
>>>
>>> Are there any Arm engineers who prefer Option 2, or is that just there to accommodate feedback on libc-alpha?
>>>
>>> My main concern was the variance in configurations with Option 1 (compared to Option 2). To some extent, the
>>> variance with Option 1 is temporary. If both Option 1 and 2 are offered, we have permanent variance. From my
>>> point of view, that's worth that just going with Option 1.
>>>
>>> So if this is some sort of consensus proposal, as opposed to actual technical requirements which favor Option 2
>>> in some deployments, I think that's not a good idea, and we should go with Option 1 instead.
>>>
>>
>> well glibc can pretend that only Option 1 is available,
>> my latest patch assumes 64k probe interval:
>> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-12/msg00451.html
>>
>> however Option 1 requires generic code to be changed
>> for aarch64 only (in the libc and elsewhere) and we
>> cannot easily do that on all (non-glibc) systems.
>>
>> it seems to me if there are systems where Option 1
>> may not provide guaranteed trap on stack overflow
>> then gcc should have Option 2 for those systems.
>
> For what it's worth, I would prefer having the assumed minimum guard
> size be 4k for musl targets. Even if we do increase the default guard
> to 64k for 64-bit archs (seems likely), applications that manually set
> it lower for whatever reason should still be handled safely.
>
> I'm utterly unconvinced that there's any practical measurable
> performance difference either way, unless someone can demonstrate an
> existing real-world program (not artificial benchmark) where the
> difference is measurable.
I've believed all along that stack clash probing as implemented by GCC
is pretty damn cheap -- cheap enough that we ought to just turn it on by
default and move on to other more useful work items. And I hold that
position regardless of whether or not the guard is 4k or 64k.
64k is marginally better simply because there's less probing,
particularly in a functions that allocate something like char array of
MAXPATHLEN entries. Based on what I've looked at on a distro-wide
basis, MAXPATHLEN arrays on the stack are the single biggest reasons we
have to probe in prologues.
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-20 4:42 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
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 [this message]
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=5194e219-78fd-80a0-e91a-9af7ac86dbe0@redhat.com \
--to=law@redhat.com \
--cc=Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com \
--cc=Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com \
--cc=dalias@libc.org \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=james.greenhalgh@arm.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).