From: Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
To: Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>
Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] aarch64: Add the clone3 wrapper
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 13:55:18 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a354d63c-fd0c-7b51-1a97-48dac20dbbef@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y2Px5GrujbnzWb74@arm.com>
On 03/11/22 13:52, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> The 11/03/2022 13:39, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/11/22 13:31, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>>> The 11/03/2022 13:22, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03/11/22 11:01, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>>>>> The 11/03/2022 10:15, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/11/22 09:12, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>>>>>>> The 09/30/2022 16:26, Adhemerval Zanella via Libc-alpha wrote:
>>>>>>>> It follow the internal signature:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> extern int clone3 (struct clone_args *__cl_args, size_t __size,
>>>>>>>> int (*__func) (void *__arg), void *__arg);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And x86_64 semantics to return EINVAL if either cl_args or func
>>>>>>>> is NULL. The stack is 16-byte aligned prior executing func.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "x86_64 semantics" sounds wrong: maybe this should be documented?
>>>>>>> i'd expect 0 cl_args/func to be UB like in most posix apis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, I think it is worth to document the function semantic
>>>>>> properly at least on its internal header (include/clone_internal.h).
>>>>>> H.J also added a new clone3.h headers, which is not currently installed
>>>>>> that I am inclined to just remove it from now. We might reinstate
>>>>>> if/when we decide to provide the clone3 as an ABI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And returning EINVAL for 0 cl_args/func aligns with our exported clone
>>>>>> interface, where EINVAL is also returned for 0 function argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> ok.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and aligning sp in the child fails if signals are allowed there
>>>>>>> (pthreads does not allow signals now, direct callers might).
>>>>>>> i dont know if that's a concert (or if unaligned stack is
>>>>>>> something we should fix up in clone3).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was overlooked on initial x86_64 clone3 implementation as well. I
>>>>>> think it better to just return EINVAL for unaligned stacks and avoid
>>>>>> to change the stack pointer in the created thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> long time ago linux did that on aarch64, but it was removed:
>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=e6d9a52543338603e25e71e0e4942f05dae0dd8a
>>>>>
>>>>> i think in clone3 the kernel should have aligned (it knows
>>>>> the bounds now), doing it in the userspace wrapper is weird
>>>>> (should we adjust the stack size?). and not doing it at all
>>>>> makes clone3 hard to use portably (user has to know target
>>>>> specific pcs requirements).
>>>>>
>>>>> not sure what's the best way forward.
>>>>
>>>> I think the stack size won't matter much here, at least not from
>>>> kernel point of view (the resulting stack size will most likely
>>>> be page aligned anyway). But I think this kernel commit makes a good
>>>> point that silently adjusting the stack in userland is not the
>>>> correct approach, I think H.J has done to make it consistent with
>>>> glibc clone implementation which does it.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO the best approach would to just remove the stack alignment,
>>>> since it incurs the signal handling issue.
>>>
>>> current generic clone callers dont align the stack and
>>> e.g. unaligned pthread custom stack should work.
>>>
>>> so we have to do arch specific stack alignment somewhere,
>>> maybe in pthread_create?
>>
>> I am thinking on __clone_internal, where if an unaligned stack is
>> used it creates a new clone_args struct with adjust arguments. It
>> can adjust the struct in place (not sure which is better).
>
> if the api is not exposed, then i think the arg can be modified
> in place. (if clone3 api is exposed to users then we should not
> modify user structs unless the clone3 api contract explicitly
> allows this.)
>
> either aligning in pthread_create or __clone_internal works for me,
> the target specific clone3 syscall should not in case that gets
> exposed to users.
>
The arg modification would be done only internally by __clone_internal,
if we ever export __clone3 it will not mess with stack alignment (my
idea is to remove it from x86_64 as well).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-03 16:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-30 19:26 [PATCH v2 0/9] Optimize posix_spawn signal setup with clone3 Adhemerval Zanella
2022-09-30 19:26 ` [PATCH v2 1/9] linux: Do not reset signal handler in posix_spawn if it is already SIG_DFL Adhemerval Zanella
2023-01-11 21:06 ` Carlos O'Donell
2022-09-30 19:26 ` [PATCH v2 2/9] linux: Add clone3 CLONE_CLEAR_SIGHAND optimization to posix_spawn Adhemerval Zanella
2023-01-11 21:06 ` Carlos O'Donell
2022-09-30 19:26 ` [PATCH v2 3/9] powerpc64le: Add the clone3 wrapper Adhemerval Zanella
2022-09-30 19:26 ` [PATCH v2 4/9] aarch64: " Adhemerval Zanella
2022-11-02 12:12 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2022-11-03 13:15 ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2022-11-03 14:01 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2022-11-03 16:22 ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2022-11-03 16:31 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2022-11-03 16:39 ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2022-11-03 16:52 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2022-11-03 16:55 ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto [this message]
2022-11-03 20:55 ` H.J. Lu
2022-11-03 21:28 ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2022-11-03 21:22 ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2022-11-03 21:58 ` H.J. Lu
2022-11-04 12:32 ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2022-09-30 19:26 ` [PATCH v2 5/9] s390x: " Adhemerval Zanella
2022-09-30 19:26 ` [PATCH v2 6/9] riscv: " Adhemerval Zanella
2022-09-30 19:26 ` [PATCH v2 7/9] arm: " Adhemerval Zanella
2022-09-30 19:26 ` [PATCH v2 8/9] mips: " Adhemerval Zanella
2022-09-30 19:26 ` [PATCH v2 9/9] Linux: optimize clone3 internal usage Adhemerval Zanella
2023-01-11 21:12 ` Carlos O'Donell
2022-10-27 16:48 ` [PATCH v2 0/9] Optimize posix_spawn signal setup with clone3 Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2023-01-11 21:11 ` Carlos O'Donell
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=a354d63c-fd0c-7b51-1a97-48dac20dbbef@linaro.org \
--to=adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--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).