Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] x86/signal: Introduce helpers to get the maximum signal frame size

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: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 17:45:24 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <74ca7e8a61f051eadc895cf8b29e591cc3d0f548.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201005134230.GS6642@arm.com>

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.

Thanks,
Chang