[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUAtAJ1CmuxOFiiu53kAWwofUpFaBeFAZF7Th2VXPbHZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:38:46 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: ARM atomics overhaul for musl
On Nov 17, 2014 6:39 AM, "Russell King - ARM Linux"
<linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 01:54:13PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 05:10:55PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > which means that rather than encoding the
> > > CPU architecture (like with every other Linux architecture), we have a
> > > string which encodes the kernel architecture instead, which is absurd.
> >
> > Just like x86_64 vs i686?
>
> That is still valid, but let's wait and see what happens when a new
> "version" of x86_64 comes along.
>
> However, the issue on x86 is far less of a problem: userspace (even
> kernel space) does not have to play these games because the CPUs aren't
> designed by people intent on removing old instructions from the
> instruction set, thereby stopping existing binaries working without
> kernel emulation of the missing instructions.
>
> > > Obviously, the plan for ARM64 is that there will never be an ARMv9
> > > architecture, and ARMv8 is the perfect architecture for the future. :p
> >
> > If you haven't noticed, the distinction between ARMv6 and ARMv7 has been
> > blurred enough (guess why cpu_architecture() reports ARMv7 for
> > ARM11MPCore). ARM is trying to move away from architecture version
> > numbers, which are rather useful for marketing, to proper feature
> > detection based on CPUID. Whether there is an ARMv9 or not, it's
> > irrelevant to what Linux should do (i.e. use CPUID rather than guess
> > features based on architecture version numbers).
>
> That may be what is desired, but unfortunately we have no way to export
> all the intricate feature registers to userspace. No, elf hwcaps don't
> support it, there's only 64 bits split between two words there, and
> there are many more than just 64 bits of feature registers.
That's a ridiculous argument. Linux can freely add bits.
You could add AT_ARM_FEATURES that points to a length followed by the
indicated number of words, or you could just keep adding new HWCAP
fields as needed. This is expandable forever.
As an x86 person and a complete ARM outsider, this situation is
totally nuts. There is no good reason *not* to have feature bits, and
even in x86 land, relying on the architecture version is dangerous.
(Intel seems to be reinstating version 5 right now with Quark, and
even that is having minor issues since it's not really quite a version
5 chip.)
>
> Given that even cocked these up (just as what happened with the cache
> type register) decoding of the feature type registers depends on the
> underlying CPU architecture.
>
> So, even _if_ we exported the feature registers to userspace, you still
> need to know the CPU architecture to decode them properly, so you still
> need to parse the AT_PLATFORM string to get that information.
>
There's no need to expose the hardware feature registers as is.
Define your own sensible feature bits just for Linux.
Yes, libc implementations will need a fallback for old kernels, but at
least the set of legacy configurations that need to be supported that
way will stop increasing at some point.
--Andy
> > > So, a reasonable parsing of this would be:
> > >
> > > const char *ptr;
> > > int architecture;
> > >
> > > ptr = (const char *)(uintptr_t)getauxval(AT_PLATFORM);
> > > assert(ptr);
> > >
> > > if (!strncmp(ptr, "aarch64", 7))
> > > architecture = 8;
> > > else
> > > assert(sscanf(ptr, "v%d", &architecture) == 1);
> >
> > Oh, have you even bothered trying 32-bit (compat) getauxval(AT_PLATFORM)
> > on an aarch64 kernel? It reports "v8l", so please don't confuse others.
>
> Right, I see that now - I'm not knowledgable of the compat code, because
> ARM32 has nothing to do with it, and I missed COMPAT_ELF_PLATFORM.
>
> As for "bothered trying" - tell me how I could possibly try that. You
> know full well that I have /no/ 64-bit hardware, and you also know that
> I have *nothing* capable of running, let alone building a 64-bit ARM
> kernel.
>
> Please, next time you decide to make accusations, bear that in mind - my
> "guesses" as to what ARM64 does are based upon reading your code,
> sometimes for the first time, and not through any kind of experience of
> actually running the damned stuff.
>
> Now, think about what /you/ have said. Think about your assertion about
> that "v8l" string. How does the code react to that? Oh my, it sets
> "architecture" to 8 ! Oh lookie, it's the right value. Oh look, the
> code works correctly.
>
> So, counter to your crap about me confusing others, maybe you should
> make that same accusation of yourself!
>
> Maybe ARM and yourself should have tried to be more inclusive with ARMv8
> in general, rather than trying to push me away with accusations and the
> like (like you're doing right now) every time I say something about it.
>
> --
> FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up
> according to speedtest.net.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
