[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181101183037.GB5150@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 14:30:37 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, nhorman@...hat.com,
npmccallum@...hat.com, "Ayoun, Serge" <serge.ayoun@...el.com>,
shay.katz-zamir@...el.com, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>,
carlos@...hat.com
Subject: Re: RFC: userspace exception fixups
On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 07:09:17PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andy Lutomirski:
>
> > The basic idea would be to allow libc, or maybe even any library, to
> > register a handler that gets a chance to act on an exception caused by
> > a user instruction before a signal is delivered. As a straw-man
> > example for how this could work, there could be a new syscall:
> >
> > long register_exception_handler(void (*handler)(int, siginfo_t *, void *));
> >
> > If a handler is registered, then, if a synchronous exception happens
> > (page fault, etc), the kernel would set up an exception frame as usual
> > but, rather than checking for signal handlers, it would just call the
> > registered handler. That handler is expected to either handle the
> > exception entirely on its own or to call one of two new syscalls to
> > ask for normal signal delivery or to ask to retry the faulting
> > instruction.
>
> Would the exception handler be a per-thread resource?
>
> If it is: Would the setup and teardown overhead be prohibitive for many
> use cases (at least those do not expect a fault)?
>
> Something peripherally related to this interface: Wrappers for signal
> handlers (and not just CPU exceptions). Ideally, we want to maintain a
> flag that indicates whether we are in a signal handler, and save and
> restore errno around the installed handler.
I think the right way to make it per-thread AND low-cost would be to
register not the handler, but the (per-thread) address of a
function-pointer object pointing to the handler. Then switching the
handler just requires a single volatile store to thread-local memory,
no syscall.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists