From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [IPv6:2620:52:3:1:0:246e:9693:128c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8655E1F4B4 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 16:53:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7DC13959C87; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 16:53:40 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E7DC13959C87 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1602003221; bh=HHW6oLWR4zV2RPLim0JT1nYB7S0AFWcKslhQ0TQtlGc=; h=References:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=N1/kXvWy7CGAzrRGimHl+2LqMYRHIVBFUmG63wjHPavU2WasbWI+LMpwY86xDCSMe 2lE1C8ZkWF7t2tAQjZDydy3l47AryhAfzAegu8NopOafa8Z56Dd+T6unCIxKgiMJW5 VeDy4COgNiMNnb2+8MJ0tm4N3rRmw2p0hmykCh5o= Received: from mail-oi1-x241.google.com (mail-oi1-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::241]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 973803954C13 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 16:53:36 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 973803954C13 Received: by mail-oi1-x241.google.com with SMTP id m128so13266907oig.7 for ; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 09:53:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HHW6oLWR4zV2RPLim0JT1nYB7S0AFWcKslhQ0TQtlGc=; b=EK+ka/1cePk4dpj5mw3etXMCvKuASjEkSwGGUccfkWYkurkie7nkNIrEte5bnW/Yva 7QK1rqvooqCHEBsgK0YWo7VbPNmgwYxRDk8BocrrXD7EW9CAOzkzV0lOHDWhQuKqv+2l ujASes8a4kuvHSq3j0Y1fM/Zj9Kt1xAmaSW/CERQxxIJIUhL9b4N8VixA0N1WXnTxDec d8irp/lkgwWhgfZKrvCPBYsGG6ocggECs1RGxsQTNV0bm5hQKieBXfaSgZRoE7AL8xSv oTk43YyQKyQq8W4HlQNM7T3Io2KP8etzWpNzoJiiUJVb9DfCW9s1T7EGiBujBAnkWZ+Y yfJw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532wJhYoq8hQTMFeitWihVdXW5IK0OanBwqMjOUMRvHpniZAzILc x9W3Nhg7ZIVDMETCcLIRyf90N1jQ+VOIZafx6Dw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxPg9b7k/RnjI7Q2GXXTovuaFaBN1W+A8IWMiTCjI2QCQ8PaE9HMz2ChiMypyt1zCYAn3k0eQtx3OCeo4avOiA= X-Received: by 2002:aca:4c7:: with SMTP id 190mr3426813oie.58.1602003215820; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 09:53:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200929205746.6763-1-chang.seok.bae@intel.com> <20201005134534.GT6642@arm.com> <20201006092532.GU6642@arm.com> <20201006154353.GZ6642@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <20201006154353.GZ6642@arm.com> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 09:52:59 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] x86: Improve Minimum Alternate Stack Size To: Dave Martin Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: "H.J. Lu via Libc-alpha" Reply-To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: linux-arch , Len Brown , Tony Luck , GNU C Library , "Ravi V. Shankar" , "Chang S. Bae" , the arch/x86 maintainers , LKML , Dave Hansen , Andy Lutomirski , Linux API , Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , Ingo Molnar Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 8:43 AM Dave Martin wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 08:18:03AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 5:12 AM H.J. Lu wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 2:25 AM Dave Martin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 10:17:06PM +0100, H.J. Lu wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 6:45 AM Dave Martin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 01:57:42PM -0700, Chang S. Bae wrote: > > > > > > > During signal entry, the kernel pushes data onto the normal userspace > > > > > > > stack. On x86, the data pushed onto the user stack includes XSAVE state, > > > > > > > which has grown over time as new features and larger registers have been > > > > > > > added to the architecture. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MINSIGSTKSZ is a constant provided in the kernel signal.h headers and > > > > > > > typically distributed in lib-dev(el) packages, e.g. [1]. Its value is > > > > > > > compiled into programs and is part of the user/kernel ABI. The MINSIGSTKSZ > > > > > > > constant indicates to userspace how much data the kernel expects to push on > > > > > > > the user stack, [2][3]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, this constant is much too small and does not reflect recent > > > > > > > additions to the architecture. For instance, when AVX-512 states are in > > > > > > > use, the signal frame size can be 3.5KB while MINSIGSTKSZ remains 2KB. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The bug report [4] explains this as an ABI issue. The small MINSIGSTKSZ can > > > > > > > cause user stack overflow when delivering a signal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In this series, we suggest a couple of things: > > > > > > > 1. Provide a variable minimum stack size to userspace, as a similar > > > > > > > approach to [5] > > > > > > > 2. Avoid using a too-small alternate stack > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't comment on the x86 specifics, but the approach followed in this > > > > > > series does seem consistent with the way arm64 populates > > > > > > AT_MINSIGSTKSZ. > > > > > > > > > > > > I need to dig up my glibc hacks for providing a sysconf interface to > > > > > > this... > > > > > > > > > > Here is my proposal for glibc: > > > > > > > > > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2020-September/118098.html > > > > > > > > Thanks for the link. > > > > > > > > Are there patches yet? I already had some hacks in the works, but I can > > > > drop them if there's something already out there. > > > > > > I am working on it. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Define SIGSTKSZ and MINSIGSTKSZ to 64KB. > > > > > > > > Can we do this? IIUC, this is an ABI break and carries the risk of > > > > buffer overruns. > > > > > > > > The reason for not simply increasing the kernel's MINSIGSTKSZ #define > > > > (apart from the fact that it is rarely used, due to glibc's shadowing > > > > definitions) was that userspace binaries will have baked in the old > > > > value of the constant and may be making assumptions about it. > > > > > > > > For example, the type (char [MINSIGSTKSZ]) changes if this #define > > > > changes. This could be a problem if an newly built library tries to > > > > memcpy() or dump such an object defined by and old binary. > > > > Bounds-checking and the stack sizes passed to things like sigaltstack() > > > > and makecontext() could similarly go wrong. > > > > > > With my original proposal: > > > > > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2020-September/118028.html > > > > > > char [MINSIGSTKSZ] won't compile. The feedback is to increase the > > > constants: > > > > > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2020-September/118092.html > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Add _SC_RSVD_SIG_STACK_SIZE for signal stack size reserved by the kernel. > > > > > > > > How about "_SC_MINSIGSTKSZ"? This was my initial choice since only the > > > > discovery method is changing. The meaning of the value is exactly the > > > > same as before. > > > > > > > > If we are going to rename it though, it could make sense to go for > > > > something more directly descriptive, say, "_SC_SIGNAL_FRAME_SIZE". > > > > > > > > The trouble with including "STKSZ" is that is sounds like a > > > > recommendation for your stack size. While the signal frame size is > > > > relevant to picking a stack size, it's not the only thing to > > > > consider. > > > > > > The problem is that AT_MINSIGSTKSZ is the signal frame size used by > > > kernel. The minimum stack size for a signal handler is more likely > > > AT_MINSIGSTKSZ + 1.5KB unless AT_MINSIGSTKSZ returns the signal > > > frame size used by kernel + 6KB for user application. > > > > > > > > > > > Also, do we need a _SC_SIGSTKSZ constant, or should the entire concept > > > > of a "recommended stack size" be abandoned? glibc can at least make a > > > > slightly more informed guess about suitable stack sizes than the kernel > > > > (and glibc already has to guess anyway, in order to determine the > > > > default thread stack size). > > > > > > Glibc should try to deduct signal frame size if AT_MINSIGSTKSZ isn't > > > available. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Deprecate SIGSTKSZ and MINSIGSTKSZ if _SC_RSVD_SIG_STACK_SIZE > > > > > is in use. > > > > > > > > Great if we can do it. I was concerned that this might be > > > > controversial. > > > > > > > > Would this just be a recommendation, or can we enforce it somehow? > > > > > > It is just an idea. We need to move away from constant SIGSTKSZ and > > > MINSIGSTKSZ. > > > > > > > Here is the glibc patch: > > > > https://gitlab.com/x86-glibc/glibc/-/commits/users/hjl/AT_MINSIGSTKSZ > > > > AT_MINSIGSTKSZ should return the signal frame size used by kernel + 6KB > > for user application. > > I'm not sure about the 6K here. 6KB is something I made up. > We a few fundamental parameters: > > * the actual maximum size of the kernel-allocated signal frame (which > we'll report via AT_MINSIGSTKSZ); Agree. > * the size of additional userspace stack frame required to execute the > minimal (i.e., empty) signal handler. (On AArch64, this is 0. In It is also 0 for x86. > environments where the C lirbrary calls signal handlers through some > sort of wrapper, this would need to include the wrapper's stack > needs also); > * additional userspace stack needs for the actual signal handler code. > This is completely unknown. That is 6KB I made up. > > _SC_MINSIGSTKSZ (however named) should certainly include the first two, > but I'm not sure about the third. It will at least be architecture- > dependent. > > > This is one reason why I still favor having more than one constant here: > the fundamental system properties should be discoverable for software > that knows how to calculate its own stack needs accurately. > > Since calculating stack needs is hard and most software doesn't bother > to do it, we could also give a "recommended" stack size which > incorporates a guess of typical handler stack needs (similarly to the > legacy SIGSTKSZ constant), but I think that should be a separate > parameter. Sounds reasonable. We can have _SC_MINSIGSTKSZ and _SC_SIGSTKSZ which is _SC_MINSIGSTKSZ + 6KB (or some other value). -- H.J.