On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:27:51PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 11 May 2016 16:26, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:00:24AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On 11 May 2016 14:18, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:50:40PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > > On 09 May 2016 22:40, Colin Ian King wrote:
> > > > > > On 09/05/16 22:31, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > > > > On 25 Apr 2016 20:42, Colin Ian King wrote:
> > > > > > >> currently, the aarch64 clone() system call requires the stack to be
> > > > > > >> aligned at a 16 byte boundary, see arch/arm64/kernel/process.c,
> > > > > > >> copy_thread():
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> if (stack_start) {
> > > > > > >> if (is_compat_thread(task_thread_info(p)))
> > > > > > >> childregs->compat_sp = stack_start;
> > > > > > >> /* 16-byte aligned stack mandatory on AArch64 */
> > > > > > >> else if (stack_start & 15)
> > > > > > >> return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > >> else
> > > > > > >> childregs->sp = stack_start;
> > > > > > >> }
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> ..and returns -EINVAL if not aligned correctly. This should be added to
> > > > > > >> the manual page clone(2) as it took me a while to figure out why clone()
> > > > > > >> was failing with -EINVAL for aarch64 but not on x86.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > seems weird for the kernel to be enforcing this. is it just because of
> > > > > > > the stated ABI ? or is there some weird requirement in the kernel itself
> > > > > > > that requires this ? it's not like other arches have this check, and
> > > > > > > there are def ABI requirements about stack alignments in C.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The article here indicates it is an aarch64 convention:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://community.arm.com/groups/processors/blog/2015/11/19/using-the-stack-in-aarch32-and-aarch64
> > > > >
> > > > > that checks my point about the ABI having alignment requirements, but
> > > > > that doesn't mean it needs to be checked/enforced in the kernel. all
> > > > > the limitations i see there can be seen in other arches, but we don't
> > > > > have those arches do any stack alignment checking. so should we be
> > > > > dropping it from aarch64 ? why does it need to be special here ?
> > > >
> > > > It is not just a software ABI requirement but a hardware one. If you try
> > > > to access the stack with an unaligned SP value, you get a fault followed
> > > > by a SIGBUS delivered to the user application. We decided to enforce
> > > > this at the copy_thread() level, it is easier to catch such issue early
> > > > than debugging SIGBUS delivered to a thread.
> > >
> > > as i said, that same behavior can be observed on other arches. i know of
> > > at least one for sure that if the stack is unaligned, then push/pop ops
> > > will also trigger SIGBUS. x86 tends to be more forgiving, but if it isn't
> > > 16bytes, then it is known that SSE optimized code will often fault.
> > >
> > > so the question is still: why is aarch64 enforcing in the kernel what all
> > > other arches have left alone even when they behave the same in hardware ?
> >
> > This was an early decision before we upstreamed the AArch64 kernel
> > patches. Whether it was right or not it doesn't matter much now;
>
> the logic behind it still matters. what was it ? or was it just what
> you outlined above ?
I don't think there was much thought in that decisions ;). It's possible
that we wanted it to match the sys_rt_sigreturn() check on SP alignment
(though this one forces a SIGSEGV on a bad frame since this syscall can
never return).
> > at this point it is considered kernel-user (syscall) ABI and any
> > change would require careful review.
>
> i don't think this classifies as ABI: we're talking about relaxing a
> restriction, not adding a new one. if we delete this code, all valid
> old binaries that worked in the past will continue to work.
That's my assumption as well, I wouldn't expect any app to have relied
on -EINVAL for this special case. That's why I suggested to Colin that
he posted a patch on linux-arm-kernel and take it from there.
--
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
