[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <396330808.24806.1642005485899.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 11:38:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
carlos <carlos@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rseq: x86: implement abort-at-ip extension
----- On Jan 12, 2022, at 11:00 AM, Florian Weimer fw@...eb.enyo.de wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 04:16:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>>> You could perhaps push a signal frame onto the stack. It's going to
>>> be expensive, but it's already in the context switch path, so maybe it
>>> does not matter.
>>
>> Please no! Signals are a trainwreck that need change (see the whole
>> AVX-512 / AMX saga), we shouldn't use more of that just cause.
>
> If it's a signal, it should be modeled as such. I think it's pretty
> close to a synchronous signal.
Florian, just to validate here: is your argument about AVX-512/AMX or about
rseq abort-at-ip ?
Am I understanding correctly that you would prefer that the kernel push an entire
signal frame onto the stack rather than just push the abort-at-ip value
on abort ? If it is the case, are there advantages in doing so ? Tooling support ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists