>>>> Would pairing one rseq_start with two rseq_finish do the trick
>>>> there ?
>>>
>>> Yes, two rseq_finish works, as long as the extra rseq management overhead
>>> is not substantial.
>>
>> I've added a commit implementing rseq_finish2() in my rseq volatile
>> dev branch. You can fetch it at:
>>
>> https://github.com/compudj/linux-percpu-dev/tree/rseq-fallback
>>
>> I also have a separate test and benchmark tree in addition to the
>> kernel selftests here:
>>
>> https://github.com/compudj/rseq-test
>>
>> I named the first write a "speculative" write, and the second write
>> the "final" write.
>>
>> Would you like to extend the test cases to cover your intended use-case ?
>>
>
>Hi Dave!
>
>I just pushed a rseq_finish2() test in my rseq-fallback branch. It implements
>a per-cpu buffer holding pointers, and pushes/pops items to/from it.
>
>To use it:
>
>cd tools/testing/selftests/rseq
>./param_test -T b
>
>(see -h for advanced usage)
>
>Let me know if I got it right!
Hi Mathieu,
Thanks, you beat me to it. I commented on the github, that's pretty much it.
> In the kernel, if rather than testing for:
>
> if ((void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs) < post_commit_ip) {
>
> we could test for both start_ip and post_commit_ip:
>
> if ((void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs) < post_commit_ip
> && (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs) >= start_ip) {
>
> We could perform the failure path (storing NULL into the rseq_cs
> field of struct rseq) in C rather than being required to do it in
> assembly at addresses >= to post_commit_ip, all because the kernel
> would test whether we are within the assembly block address range
> using both the lower and upper bounds (start_ip and post_commit_ip).
Sounds reasonable to me. I agree it would be best to move the failure path
out of the asm if possible.
