[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1587872025.rtx2ygrmn0.astroid@bobo.none>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 13:41:08 +1000
From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>,
binutils@...rceware.org, Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
libc-alpha@...rceware.org, libc-dev@...ts.llvm.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
musl@...ts.openwall.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>
Subject: Re: New powerpc vdso calling convention
Excerpts from Rich Felker's message of April 26, 2020 9:11 am:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 08:58:19AM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> Excerpts from Christophe Leroy's message of April 25, 2020 10:20 pm:
>> >
>> >
>> > Le 25/04/2020 à 12:56, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
>> >> Excerpts from Christophe Leroy's message of April 25, 2020 5:47 pm:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Le 25/04/2020 à 07:22, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
>> >>>> As noted in the 'scv' thread, powerpc's vdso calling convention does not
>> >>>> match the C ELF ABI calling convention (or the proposed scv convention).
>> >>>> I think we could implement a new ABI by basically duplicating function
>> >>>> entry points with different names.
>> >>>
>> >>> I think doing this is a real good idea.
>> >>>
>> >>> I've been working at porting powerpc VDSO to the GENERIC C VDSO, and the
>> >>> main pitfall has been that our vdso calling convention is not compatible
>> >>> with C calling convention, so we have go through an ASM entry/exit.
>> >>>
>> >>> See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=171469
>> >>>
>> >>> We should kill this error flag return through CR[SO] and get it the
>> >>> "modern" way like other architectectures implementing the C VDSO: return
>> >>> 0 when successfull, return -err when failed.
>> >>
>> >> Agreed.
>> >>
>> >>>> The ELF v2 ABI convention would suit it well, because the caller already
>> >>>> requires the function address for ctr, so having it in r12 will
>> >>>> eliminate the need for address calculation, which suits the vdso data
>> >>>> page access.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Is there a need for ELF v1 specific calls as well, or could those just be
>> >>>> deprecated and remain on existing functions or required to use the ELF
>> >>>> v2 calls using asm wrappers?
>> >>>
>> >>> What's ELF v1 and ELF v2 ? Is ELF v1 what PPC32 uses ? If so, I'd say
>> >>> yes, it would be good to have it to avoid going through ASM in the middle.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure about PPC32. On PPC64, ELFv2 functions must be called with
>> >> their address in r12 if called at their global entry point. ELFv1 have a
>> >> function descriptor with call address and TOC in it, caller has to load
>> >> the TOC if it's global.
>> >>
>> >> The vdso doesn't have TOC, it has one global address (the vdso data
>> >> page) which it loads by calculating its own address.
>> >>
>> >> The kernel doesn't change the vdso based on whether it's called by a v1
>> >> or v2 userspace (it doesn't really know itself and would have to export
>> >> different functions). glibc has a hack to create something:
>> >>
>> >> # define VDSO_IFUNC_RET(value) \
>> >> ({ \
>> >> static Elf64_FuncDesc vdso_opd = { .fd_toc = ~0x0 }; \
>> >> vdso_opd.fd_func = (Elf64_Addr)value; \
>> >> &vdso_opd; \
>> >> })
>> >>
>> >> If we could make something which links more like any other dso with
>> >> ELFv1, that would be good. Otherwise I think v2 is preferable so it
>> >> doesn't have to calculate its own address.
>> >
>> > I see the following in glibc. So looks like PPC32 is like PPC64 elfv1.
>> > By the way, they are talking about something not completely finished in
>> > the kernel. Can we finish it ?
>>
>> Possibly can. It seems like a good idea to fix all loose ends if we are
>> going to add new versions. Will have to check with the toolchain people
>> to make sure we're doing the right thing.
>
> "ELFv1" and "ELFv2" are PPC64-specific names for the old and new
> version of the ELF psABI for PPC64. They have nothing at all to do
> with PPC32 which is a completely different ABI from either.
Right, I'm just talking about those comments -- it seems like the kernel
vdso should contain an .opd section with function descriptors in it for
elfv1 calls, rather than the hack it has now of creating one in the
caller's .data section.
But all that function descriptor code is gated by
#if (defined(__PPC64__) || defined(__powerpc64__)) && _CALL_ELF != 2
So it seems PPC32 does not use function descriptors but a direct pointer
to the entry point like PPC64 with ELFv2.
Thanks,
Nick
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.
