From: "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>
To: "Dave.Martin@arm.com" <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Cc: "mingo@kernel.org" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"hjl.tools@gmail.com" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
"bp@suse.de" <bp@suse.de>,
"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"linux-api@vger.kernel.org" <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
"libc-alpha@sourceware.org" <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"luto@kernel.org" <luto@kernel.org>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>,
"linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
"mpe@ellerman.id.au" <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] x86/signal: Introduce helpers to get the maximum signal frame size
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 22:43:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20ae46ae9b74036723ff7b9f731374f78536dc88.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201007100558.GE6642@arm.com>
On Wed, 2020-10-07 at 11:05 +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 05:45:24PM +0000, Bae, Chang Seok wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 14:42 +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 01:57:43PM -0700, Chang S. Bae wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * The FP state frame contains an XSAVE buffer which must be 64-byte aligned.
> > > > + * If a signal frame starts at an unaligned address, extra space is required.
> > > > + * This is the max alignment padding, conservatively.
> > > > + */
> > > > +#define MAX_XSAVE_PADDING 63UL
> > > > +
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * The frame data is composed of the following areas and laid out as:
> > > > + *
> > > > + * -------------------------
> > > > + * | alignment padding |
> > > > + * -------------------------
> > > > + * | (f)xsave frame |
> > > > + * -------------------------
> > > > + * | fsave header |
> > > > + * -------------------------
> > > > + * | siginfo + ucontext |
> > > > + * -------------------------
> > > > + */
> > > > +
> > > > +/* max_frame_size tells userspace the worst case signal stack size. */
> > > > +static unsigned long __ro_after_init max_frame_size;
> > > > +
> > > > +void __init init_sigframe_size(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Use the largest of possible structure formats. This might
> > > > + * slightly oversize the frame for 64-bit apps.
> > > > + */
> > > > +
> > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32) ||
> > > > + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION))
> > > > + max_frame_size = max((unsigned long)SIZEOF_sigframe_ia32,
> > > > + (unsigned long)SIZEOF_rt_sigframe_ia32);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_X32_ABI))
> > > > + max_frame_size = max(max_frame_size, (unsigned long)SIZEOF_rt_sigframe_x32);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64))
> > > > + max_frame_size = max(max_frame_size, (unsigned long)SIZEOF_rt_sigframe);
> > > > +
> > > > + max_frame_size += fpu__get_fpstate_sigframe_size() + MAX_XSAVE_PADDING;
> > >
> > > For arm64, we round the worst-case padding up by one.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, I saw that. The ARM code adds the max padding, too:
> >
> > signal_minsigstksz = sigframe_size(&user) +
> > round_up(sizeof(struct frame_record), 16) +
> > 16; /* max alignment padding */
> >
> >
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c#n973
> >
> > > I can't remember the full rationale for this, but it at least seemed a
> > > bit weird to report a size that is not a multiple of the alignment.
> > >
> >
> > Because the last state size of XSAVE may not be 64B aligned, the (reported)
> > sum of xstate size here does not guarantee 64B alignment.
> >
> > > I'm can't think of a clear argument as to why it really matters, though.
> >
> > We care about the start of XSAVE buffer for the XSAVE instructions, to be
> > 64B-aligned.
>
> Ah, I see. That makes sense.
>
> For arm64, there is no additional alignment padding inside the frame,
> only the padding inserted after the frame to ensure that the base
> address is 16-byte aligned.
>
> However, I wonder whether people will tend to assume that AT_MINSIGSTKSZ
> is a sensible (if minimal) amount of stack to allocate. Allocating an
> odd number of bytes, or any amount that isn't a multiple of the
> architecture's preferred (or mandated) stack alignment probably doesn't
> make sense.
>
> AArch64 has a mandatory stack alignment of 16 bytes; I'm not sure about
> x86.
The x86 ABI looks to require 16-byte alignment (for both 32-/64-bit modes).
FWIW, the 32-bit ABI got changed from 4-byte alignement.
Thank you for brining up the point. Ack. The kernel is expected to return a
16-byte aligned size. I made this change after a discussion with H.J.:
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c b/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
index c042236ef52e..52815d7c08fb 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
@@ -212,6 +212,11 @@ do {
\
* Set up a signal frame.
*/
+/* x86 ABI requires 16-byte alignment */
+#define FRAME_ALIGNMENT 16UL
+
+#define MAX_FRAME_PADDING FRAME_ALIGNMENT - 1
+
/*
* Determine which stack to use..
*/
@@ -222,9 +227,9 @@ static unsigned long align_sigframe(unsigned long sp)
* Align the stack pointer according to the i386 ABI,
* i.e. so that on function entry ((sp + 4) & 15) == 0.
*/
- sp = ((sp + 4) & -16ul) - 4;
+ sp = ((sp + 4) & -FRAME_ALIGNMENT) - 4;
#else /* !CONFIG_X86_32 */
- sp = round_down(sp, 16) - 8;
+ sp = round_down(sp, FRAME_ALIGNMENT) - 8;
#endif
return sp;
}
@@ -404,7 +409,7 @@ static int __setup_rt_frame(int sig, struct ksignal
*ksig,
unsafe_put_sigcontext(&frame->uc.uc_mcontext, fp, regs, set,
Efault);
unsafe_put_sigmask(set, frame, Efault);
user_access_end();
-
+
if (copy_siginfo_to_user(&frame->info, &ksig->info))
return -EFAULT;
@@ -685,6 +690,8 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE0(rt_sigreturn)
* -------------------------
* | fsave header |
* -------------------------
+ * | alignment padding |
+ * -------------------------
* | siginfo + ucontext |
* -------------------------
*/
@@ -710,7 +717,12 @@ void __init init_sigframe_size(void)
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64))
max_frame_size = max(max_frame_size, (unsigned
long)SIZEOF_rt_sigframe);
+ max_frame_size += MAX_FRAME_PADDING;
+
max_frame_size += fpu__get_fpstate_sigframe_size() +
MAX_XSAVE_PADDING;
+
+ /* Userspace expects an aligned size. */
+ max_frame_size = round_up(max_frame_size, FRAME_ALIGNMENT);
}
unsigned long get_sigframe_size(void)
Thanks,
Chang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-08 22:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-29 20:57 [RFC PATCH 0/4] x86: Improve Minimum Alternate Stack Size Chang S. Bae
2020-09-29 20:57 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] x86/signal: Introduce helpers to get the maximum signal frame size Chang S. Bae
2020-10-05 13:42 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-06 17:45 ` Bae, Chang Seok
2020-10-07 10:05 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-08 22:43 ` Bae, Chang Seok [this message]
2020-10-12 13:26 ` Dave Martin
2020-09-29 20:57 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86/elf: Support a new ELF aux vector AT_MINSIGSTKSZ Chang S. Bae
2020-09-29 20:57 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] x86/signal: Prevent an alternate stack overflow before a signal delivery Chang S. Bae
2020-09-29 20:57 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] selftest/x86/signal: Include test cases for validating sigaltstack Chang S. Bae
2020-10-05 13:45 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4] x86: Improve Minimum Alternate Stack Size Dave Martin
2020-10-05 21:17 ` H.J. Lu
2020-10-06 9:25 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-06 12:12 ` H.J. Lu
2020-10-06 15:18 ` H.J. Lu
2020-10-06 15:43 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-06 16:52 ` H.J. Lu
2020-10-06 15:25 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-06 15:33 ` Dave Hansen
2020-10-06 17:00 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-06 18:21 ` Florian Weimer
2020-10-07 10:19 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-06 18:30 ` Dave Hansen
2020-10-07 10:20 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-06 15:34 ` H.J. Lu
2020-10-06 16:55 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-06 17:44 ` H.J. Lu
2020-10-07 10:47 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-07 13:30 ` H.J. Lu
2020-10-07 15:45 ` Dave Martin
2020-10-07 17:43 ` H.J. Lu
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=20ae46ae9b74036723ff7b9f731374f78536dc88.camel@intel.com \
--to=chang.seok.bae@intel.com \
--cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=ravi.v.shankar@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--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).