[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150213163013.GE23507@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:30:13 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"libc-alpha@...rceware.org" <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
"pinskia@...il.com" <pinskia@...il.com>,
"musl@...ts.openwall.com" <musl@...ts.openwall.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Pinski <apinski@...ium.com>,
Marcus Shawcroft <Marcus.Shawcroft@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 00/24] ILP32 support in ARM64
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 01:33:56PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 07:59:24PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> hat am 12. Februar 2015 um 19:17
> > > geschrieben:
> > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 02:21:18PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 05:39:19PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 06:13:02PM +0000, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > > > I don't know if this has been discussed on libc-alpha yet or not, but
> > > > > > I think we need to open a discussion of how it relates to open glibc
> > > > > > bug #16437, which presently applies only to x32 (ILP32 ABI on x86_64):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16437
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm trying to understand the problem first. Quoting from the bug above
> > > > > (which I guess is quoted form C11):
> > > > >
> > > > > "The range and precision of times representable in clock_t and time_t
> > > > > are implementation-defined. The timespec structure shall contain at
> > > > > least the following members, in any order.
> > > > >
> > > > > time_t tv_sec; // whole seconds -- >= 0
> > > > > long tv_nsec; // nanoseconds -- [0, 999999999]"
> > > > >
> > > > > So changing time_t to 64-bit is fine on x32. The timespec struct
> > > > > exported by the kernel always uses a long for tv_nsec. However, glibc uses
> > > > > __syscall_slong_t which ends up as 64-bit for x32 (I guess it mirrors
> > > > > the __kernel_long_t definition).
> > > > >
> > > > > So w.r.t. C11, the exported kernel timespec looks fine. But I think the
> > > > > x32 kernel support (and the current ILP32 patches) assume a native
> > > > > struct timespec with tv_nsec as 64-bit.
> > > >
> > > > The exported kernel timespec is not fine if long is defined as a
> > > > 32-bit type, which it is for x32 and the proposed aarch64-ILP32 ABIs.
> > >
> > > The exported kernel headers comply with POSIX as they use long for
> > > tv_nsec. The exported headers can be used in user space and with an
> > > ILP32 ABI, long is 32-bit. The problem is the syscall handler which uses
> > > the same structure in kernel where long is 64-bit. But this doesn't
> > > change the fact that the exported header was still correct from a user
> > > perspective.
> >
> > This is not ILP32 specific really, we need to add the same set of syscalls
> > for all 32-bit systems, in addition to the existing ones that take
> > a 32-bit time_t.
>
> We can look at this as two scenarios:
>
> 1. existing 32-bit user space with a 32-bit time_t
> 2. new 32-bit user space, potentially with 64-bit time_t
>
> For (1), we need an additional set of syscalls in parallel with the
> old ones and most likely a different structure, let's say timespec64.
>
> For (2), we could go for a 64-bit time_t in timespec directly, without
> any timespec64 and additional set of syscalls (though internally the
> kernel may handle them as timespec64).
>
> For compat support on a 64-bit kernel, we may need to support both
> 32-bit time_t via compat_timespec and a 64-bit time_t via a new
> compat_timespec64. In case of AArch64 ILP32, any timespec syscall should
> be routed directly to the corresponding compat_timespec64 handlers as we
> define a 64-bit time_t.
>
> For new 32-bit native architectures (no compat layer), we may want to
> enforce a 64-bit time_t from the beginning.
>
> Anyway, since AArch64 ILP32 does not have a legacy ABI with 32-bit
> time_t, we can start implementing it independently of the additional
> syscalls for 32-bit timespec64. Eventually, the same code path will be
> used for legacy 32-bit with the new 64-bit time_t syscalls.
This sounds right.
> > > The solution (for new ports) could be similar to the other such
> > > solutions in the compat layer. A kernel internal structure which is
> > > binary-compatible with the ILP32 user one (as exported by the kernel):
> > >
> > > struct ilp32_timespec_kernel_internal_only {
> > > __kernel_time_t tv_sec; /* seconds */
> > > int tv_nsec; /* nanoseconds */
> > > };
> > >
> > > and a syscall wrapper which converts between ilp32_timespec and timespec
> > > (take compat_sys_clock_settime as an example).
> >
> > We then have to to this on all architectures, and not call it ilp32_timespec,
> > but call it something else.
> >
> > I would much prefer to only have two versions of each syscall that takes a
> > timespec rather than three versions, or having a version that behaves
> > differently based on the type of program calling it. On native 32-bit
> > systems, we should have the native syscall taking the 16-byte structure
> > (using long long __kernel_time64_t)
>
> Can this also be 12 bytes in general if tv_nsec stays as 32-bit? The
> size of such structure would be 16 bytes on ARM but I guess this depends
> on long long the alignment requirements on specific architectures.
The only archs with modern relevance I'm aware of where 64-bit types
are not aligned are i386 and, by a regretable but hard-to-fix mistake,
or1k. I don't have much opinion on whether the 64-bit-time_t timespec
should be 12 bytes or 16 bytes on such archs. From my perspective it's
a new ABI anyway so I'd like to be able to fix the 64-bit alignment
issue at the same time, in which case the question would go away, but
I'm sure others (glibc) will prefer a more transitional approach with
symbol versioning or feature test macros or something.
> > along with the compatibility syscall with a 8-byte structure for
> > existing applications.
> >
> > On 64-bit systems, the same syscall source can be used for the normal 16-byte
> > structure on native 64-bit tasks, ilp32 tasks (x32, aarch64-32), and future
> > compat32 (i386, aarch32, ...) tasks, while the syscall for the 8-byte structure
> > deals with legacy compat32 tasks that do not yet use __kernel_time64_t.
>
> We could do with two syscalls but, as you said, we need some padding and
> zeroing when the sizeof(time_t) != sizeof(long).
>
> > > If the user structure has some padding (and as I've read in this thread
> > > it is allowed), it could be even easier for the kernel. The padding
> > > could be 32-bit before or after tv_nsec, depending on endianness.
> >
> > The problem as pointed out before is that if you do this, 32-bit tasks
> > need to have the padding word zeroed at some stage for data passed into
> > the kernel, while 64-bit tasks need to return an error if the upper half
> > of the tv_nsec word is nonzero, at least for interfaces that are documented
> > to do this.
> >
> > This can be done either in the kernel or in the libc.
>
> I think this should be in the kernel as user is allowed to invoke
> syscalls directly outside the libc wrappers.
I agree, but see details below on why.
> > In the kernel, it comes down to a function like
> >
> > int get_user_timespec64(struct timespec64 *ts, struct __kernel_timespec64 __user
> > *uts, bool task_32bit)
> > {
> > struct __kernel_timespec64 input;
> >
> > if (copy_from_user(&input, uts, sizeof(input))
> > return -EFAULT;
> >
> > ts->tv_sec = input.tv_sec;
> > if (task_32bit)
> > ts->tv_nsec = (int)input.tv_nsec;
> > else
> > ts->tv_nsec = input.tv_nsec;
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> The only drawback is that native 64-bit and new 32-bit have the same
> handling path, potentially slowing down the former (it may not be
> noticeable).
Offhand, I would not consider a single predictable branch on syscall
entry or return to be noticable relative to general syscall overhead.
> > The data structure definition is a little bit fragile, as it depends on
> > user space not using the __BIT_ENDIAN symbol in a conflicting way. So
> > far we have managed to keep that outside of general purpose headers, but
> > it should at least blow up in an obvious way if it does, rather than
> > breaking silently.
> >
> > I still think it's more practical to keep the zeroing in user space though.
> > In that case, we keep defining __kernel_timespec64 with a 'typedef long
> > long __kernel_snseconds_t', and it's up to the libc to either use
> > __kernel_timespec64 as its timespec, or to define a C11-compliant
> > timespec itself and zero out the bits before passing the data to the kernel.
>
> The problem with doing this in user space is syscall(2). If we don't
> allow it, then it's fine to do the padding in libc.
It's already the case that callers have to tiptoe around syscall(2)
usage on a per-arch basis for silly things like the convention for
passing 64-bit arguments on 32-bit archs, different arg orders to work
around 64-bit alignment and issues with too many args, and various
legacy issues. So I think manual use of syscall(2) is a less-critical
issue, though of course from a libc perspective I would very much like
for the kernel to handle it right.
What is important, on the other hand, is how timespec creeps into
other things. It's a member of lots of other important structs used
for communication with the kernel, some of which libc can't be aware
of -- things like ioctls, socket options, etc. where kernel device
drivers and network protocols, etc. may add new ones that libc isn't
aware of. IMO these are the most compelling reason to ask that the
kernel handle accepting timespecs in the proper userspace ABI form.
Rich
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.
