From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Stas Sergeev <stsp@users.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [Cleanup] x86: signal: unify the sigaltstack check with other arches
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 17:20:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160308162046.GA30211@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56CEF02C.7050906@list.ru>
* Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> wrote:
> 25.02.2016 11:25, Ingo Molnar пишет:
> >
> > * Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> wrote:
> >
> >> Currently x86's get_sigframe() checks for "current->sas_ss_size"
> >> to determine whether there is a need to switch to sigaltstack.
> >> The common practice used by all other arches is to check for
> >> sas_ss_flags(sp) == 0
> >>
> >> This patch makes the code consistent with other arches.
> >> The slight complexity of the patch is added by the optimization on
> >> !sigstack check that was requested by Andy Lutomirski: sas_ss_flags(sp)==0
> >> already implies that we are not on a sigstack, so the code is shuffled
> >> to avoid the duplicate checking.
> >
> > So this changelog is missing an analysis about what effect this change will have
> > on applications. Can any type of user-space code see a change in behavior? If yes,
> > what will happen and is that effect desirable?
> This is a clean-up, and as such, there is no visible effect.
> If there is - it is a bug.
> The purpose of this patch is only to unify the x86 code with
> what all the other arches do. It was initially the part of the
> rejected series, but now it is just a clean-up.
Ok, so AFAICS the relevant change is:
- if (current->sas_ss_size)
- sp = current->sas_ss_sp + current->sas_ss_size;
+ if (sas_ss_flags(sp) == 0)
+ sp = current->sas_ss_sp + current->sas_ss_size;
and since sas_ss_flags() is defined as:
static inline int sas_ss_flags(unsigned long sp)
{
if (!current->sas_ss_size)
return SS_DISABLE;
return on_sig_stack(sp) ? SS_ONSTACK : 0;
}
sas_ss_flags() returns 0 iff current->sas_ss_size && !on_sig_stack().
But we already have on_sig_stack(sp) calculated. Why not write that as:
+ if (current->sas_ss_size && !onsigstack)
+ sp = current->sas_ss_sp + current->sas_ss_size;
and since we check '!onsigstack' in both branches, we might as well factor it out
into a single condition ... and arrive to the exact code that we began with.
So what happened is that every other arch has a non-optimal version of this
function.
And if you look at the x86-32 defconfig build size difference:
text data bss dec hex filename
4155 0 0 4155 103b signal.o.before
4299 0 0 4299 10cb signal.o.after
i.e. your patch increases the generated code size. So I don't see the upside.
If this is really duplicated across architectures then we should perhaps try to
factor out this check into kernel/signal.c or so, and share it between
architectures more seriously?
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-08 16:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-21 23:01 [PATCH] [Cleanup] x86: signal: unify the sigaltstack check with other arches Stas Sergeev
2016-02-25 8:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-02-25 12:14 ` Stas Sergeev
2016-03-08 16:20 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2016-03-08 16:55 ` Stas Sergeev
2016-03-10 0:02 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-03-10 10:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-03-10 12:08 ` Stas Sergeev
2016-04-13 22:11 ` Stas Sergeev
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160308162046.GA30211@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=brgerst@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=stsp@list.ru \
--cc=stsp@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).