Adding V-ext regs to signal context w/o expanding kernel struct sigcontext to avoid glibc ABI break
Philipp Tomsich
philipp.tomsich at vrull.eu
Wed Jan 4 13:29:39 PST 2023
On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 at 21:46, Vineet Gupta <vineetg at rivosinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/4/23 08:34, Andy Chiu wrote:
> > Hi Vineet,
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 3:17 AM Vineet Gupta <vineetg at rivosinc.com> wrote:
> >> The prctl support in there is really rudimentary and incomplete. There's
> >> more work needed to use the dynamic state of enablement - for say signal
> >> frame etc.
> > Yes, I agree that signal and ptrace need special handling if we'd turn
> > off Vector with prctl. For example, we may not need to save/restore
> > vector context on context switches and signal handlings. And we may
> > have to prevent ptrace from setting/getting vector context in such
> > case. I can implement this into the series if this is what you're
> > looking for.
>
> Perfect. This is exactly the coverage I was hoping to see. Go for it.
>
> >> The new Kconfig CONFIG_RISCV_VSTATE_INIT_ALL seems like a
> >> hack bolted on top.
> > IIUC, most opinions suggested that we should keep the default Vector
> > state to ON in thread:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220921214439.1491510-17-stillson@rivosinc.com/T/#u
>
> Actually community feedback is that they *don't * want the default
> vector state to be on due to power implications, increased stack and
> memory usage for vector contents (in that thread and else where as
> well). So we should keep it disabled by default, but indeed we could
> have that Kconfig option to enable it. Granted distro kernels will keep
> it disabled by default, this lets vendors enable it selectively until
> the full userspace enabling bits are in place.
Should we punt this to the ELF (e.g., using a RISC-V specific
attribute) and take a per-process decision on whether to start in ON
or OFF?
I don't feel fully comfortable with a KCONFIG that could change and
invalidate the assumptions a userspace process could have made…
Alternatively, we could establish the convention of having two stub
libraries that set up either enabled or disable state from their
.init_array to provide a mechanism for folks that want to make an
explicit assumption. Although this may try to overdesign a solution
for a non-issue.
Philipp.
>
> > So IMHO adding a build option to those who prefer not to
> > unconditionally enable V should be sufficient.
>
> As above, it should be other way round.
>
> Thx,
> -Vineet
More information about the linux-riscv
mailing list