Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 18:08:56 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "musl@lists.openwall.com" <musl@lists.openwall.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net>
Subject: Re: [musl] Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/vdso/32: Add AT_SYSINFO cancellation
 helpers
Message-ID: <20160312170856.GC1108@gmail.com>
References: <20160309085631.GA3247@gmail.com>
 <20160309113449.GZ29662@port70.net>
 <CA+55aFzOcxbhXCm01+NMgY9=THYgjojvDGeYsnxe-vWfiX4X0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160310033446.GL9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20160310111646.GA13102@gmail.com>
 <20160310164104.GM9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20160310180331.GB15940@gmail.com>
 <20160310232819.GR9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20160311093347.GA17749@gmail.com>
 <20160311113914.GD29662@port70.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160311113914.GD29662@port70.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 968
Lines: 30


(Argh: Mail-Followup-To spam your mailer sets up is nasty!)

* Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> wrote:

> >   4. A calls cancellation point and syscall correctly executes
> >   5. Once A enables cancellation again, the cancellation propagates.
> > 
> > So I still see no problem.
> 
> i think the sticky signal design would work, but more
> complex than what we have and adds some atomic rmw ops
> into common code paths and not backward compatible.

Agreed about complexity, but note that the RMW ops shouldn't really be expensive 
here, as this should be a well-cached flag. Especially compared to:

> not using vsyscalls for cancellation-points sounds easier.

... FYI not using vsyscalls has _far_ higher cost than using well-cached RMW ops.

So ... what do you think about Linus's SA_SYNCHRONOUS approach? I think it can be 
made to work without much fuss.

There will still be different code paths on old and new kernels, but that's 
unavoidable.

Thanks,

	Ingo