On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:43 PM, <j...@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 03:38:31PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:31 PM, <j...@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 03:01:16PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > For 32-bit userspace on a 64-bit kernel, this requires modifying
>> >> > stub32_clone to actually swap the appropriate arguments to match
>> >> > CONFIG_CLONE_BACKWARDS, rather than just leaving the C argument for tls
>> >> > broken.
>> >> >
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org>
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com>
>> >> > ---
>> >> > arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 +
>> >> > arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S | 2 +-
>> >> > arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c | 6 +++---
>> >> > arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c | 8 ++++----
>> >> > 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>> >> >
>> >> > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> >> > index b7d31ca..4960b0d 100644
>> >> > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> >> > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> >> > @@ -124,6 +124,7 @@ config X86
>> >> > select MODULES_USE_ELF_REL if X86_32
>> >> > select MODULES_USE_ELF_RELA if X86_64
>> >> > select CLONE_BACKWARDS if X86_32
>> >> > + select HAVE_COPY_THREAD_TLS
>> >> > select ARCH_USE_BUILTIN_BSWAP
>> >> > select ARCH_USE_QUEUE_RWLOCK
>> >> > select OLD_SIGSUSPEND3 if X86_32 || IA32_EMULATION
>> >> > diff --git a/arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S b/arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S
>> >> > index 156ebca..0286735 100644
>> >> > --- a/arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S
>> >> > +++ b/arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S
>> >> > @@ -487,7 +487,7 @@ GLOBAL(\label)
>> >> > ALIGN
>> >> > GLOBAL(stub32_clone)
>> >> > leaq sys_clone(%rip),%rax
>> >> > - mov %r8, %rcx
>> >> > + xchg %r8, %rcx
>> >> > jmp ia32_ptregs_common
>> >>
>> >> Do I understand correct that whatever function this is a stub for just
>> >> takes its arguments in the wrong order? If so, can we just fix it
>> >> instead of using xchg here?
>> >
>> > 32-bit x86 and 64-bit x86 take the arguments to clone in a different
>> > order, and stub32_clone fixes up the argument order then calls the
>> > 64-bit sys_clone.
>> >
>> > I'd love to see *all* the 32-on-64 compat stubs for clone rewritten in C
>> > under CONFIG_COMPAT. However, doing so would require encoding the
>> > knowledge for each 64-bit architecture for how its corresponding 32-bit
>> > architecture accepts arguments to clone, which is information that the
>> > current CONFIG_CLONE_BACKWARDS{1,2,3} don't include; it would then
>> > require cleaning up all the architecture-specific assembly stubs for
>> > 32-bit clone entry points.
>> >
>> > In the meantime, doing that *just* for 32-bit x86 on 64-bit x86 doesn't
>> > seem worth it, since it would require adding a new C entry point for
>> > compat_sys_clone under arch/x86 somewhere.
>> >
>> > One cleanup at a time. :)
>>
>> Fine w/ me.
>
> Thanks.
>
>> >
>> >> In general, I much prefer C code to new asm where it makes sense to
>> >> make this tradeoff.
>> >
>> > Agreed completely. However, this is at least conservation-of-asm, or
>> > reduction if you consider the pt_regs argument-grabbing hack to be
>> > asm-esque code.
>> >
>> >> Other than that, this is a huge improvement. You'll have minor
>> >> conflicts against -tip, though.
>> >
>> > Right, I've seen your current changes there. Should be a trivial merge
>> > though.
>> >
>> > Would you mind providing an ack for the series, or at least for the
>> > first two patches?
>>
>> I can give you an ok-in-principle on the first two. I'd need to stare
>> at the awful code for a bit to understand the @!*&! clone variants to
>> really ack them convincingly.
>
> I'd definitely appreciate the staring. :)
>
>> OTOH, it would be rather surprising if you messed it up in a way that
>> still boots on all three variants (native 32-bit, native 64-bit, and
>> compat).
>>
>> So, for the first two patches:
>>
>> Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org> # assuming all bitnesses boot
>
> I did test all three, not just with booting but with a thread-local
> storage test.
And it's fairly clear that no one ever tested clone-based TLS in 32
bits from a 64-bit ELF binary, because it was broken until very
recently :-/
This stuff is too magical and too poorly documented for my tastes.
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
