lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v7)
Date
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> writes:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> ----- On Mar 22, 2019, at 4:09 PM, Carlos O'Donell codonell@redhat.com wrote:
...
>
> [...]
>>> +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/powerpc/bits/rseq.h
> [...]
>>> +/* Signature required before each abort handler code. */
>>> +#define RSEQ_SIG 0x53053053
>>
>> Why isn't this an opcode specific to power?
>
> On powerpc 32/64, the abort is placed in a __rseq_failure executable section:
>
> #define RSEQ_ASM_DEFINE_ABORT(label, abort_label) \
> ".pushsection __rseq_failure, \"ax\"\n\t" \
> ".long " __rseq_str(RSEQ_SIG) "\n\t" \
> __rseq_str(label) ":\n\t" \
> "b %l[" __rseq_str(abort_label) "]\n\t" \
> ".popsection\n\t"
>
> That section only contains snippets of those trampolines. Arguably, it would be
> good if disassemblers could find valid instructions there. Boqun Feng could perhaps
> shed some light on this signature choice ? Now would be a good time to decide
> once and for all whether a valid instruction would be a better choice.

I'm a bit vague on what we're trying to do here.

But it seems like you want some sort of "eye catcher" prior to the branch?

That value is a valid instruction on current CPUs (rlwimi.
r5,r24,6,1,9), and even if it wasn't it could become one in future.

If you change it to 0x8053530 that is both a valid instruction and is a
nop (conditional trap immediate but with no conditions set).

cheers

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-02 08:03    [W:0.161 / U:8.860 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site