From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1756115Ab0AVSHI@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756115Ab0AVSHI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:07:08 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755881Ab0AVSHH
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:07:07 -0500
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:39599 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755443Ab0AVSHG (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:07:06 -0500
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/7] UBP, XOL and Uprobes [ Summary of Comments
 and actions to be taken ]
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
       utrace-devel <utrace-devel@redhat.com>,
       Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
       Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@redhat.com>,
       Maneesh Soni <maneesh@in.ibm.com>, Jim Keniston <jkenisto@us.ibm.com>,
       Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
       Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
       "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100122070232.GA2975@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20100111122521.22050.3654.sendpatchset@srikar.in.ibm.com>
	 <20100122070232.GA2975@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:06:14 +0100
Message-ID: <1264183574.4283.1558.camel@laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 12:32 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:

> 2. XOL vma vs Emulation vs Single Stepping Inline vs using Protection
> Rings.
> 	XOL VMA is an additional process address vma.  This is
> 	opposition to add an additional vma without user actually
> 	requesting for the same.
> 
> 	XOL vma and single stepping inline are the two architecture
> 	independent implementations. While other implementations are
> 	more architecture specific. Single stepping inline wouldnt go
> 	well with multithreaded process.
> 
> 	Even though XOL vma has its own issues, we will go with it since
> 	other implementations seem to have more complications.
> 
> 	we would look forward to implementing boosters later. 
> 	Later on, if we come across another techniques with lesser
> 	side-effects than the XOL vma, we would switch to using them.

How about modifying glibc to reserve like 64 bytes on the TLS structure
it has and storing the ins and possible boost jmp there? Since each
thread can only have a single trap at any one time that should be
enough.