lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] rseq: x86: implement abort-at-ip extension
----- On Jan 12, 2022, at 11:00 AM, Florian Weimer fw@deneb.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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-01-12 17:39    [W:0.060 / U:0.656 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site