Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 3 Jun 2020 08:40:35 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To:     Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc:     carlos <carlos@redhat.com>, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>,
        Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>,
        libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ben Maurer <bmaurer@fb.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Paul <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Dave Watson <davejwatson@fb.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-api <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Message-ID: <1895296081.51093.1591188035688.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
In-Reply-To: <87r1uwwcsl.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
References: <20200527185130.5604-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <20200527185130.5604-2-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <87d06gxsla.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <1953500643.51064.1591186963416.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <87r1uwwcsl.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH glibc 1/3] glibc: Perform rseq registration at C startup
 and thread creation (v20)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Topic: glibc: Perform rseq registration at C startup and thread creation (v20)
Thread-Index: fhLu40I3uZTnsOzd9ZO4uj6ygvG/5A==
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


----- On Jun 3, 2020, at 8:31 AM, Florian Weimer fweimer@redhat.com wrote:

> * Mathieu Desnoyers:
>=20
>> ----- On Jun 3, 2020, at 8:05 AM, Florian Weimer fweimer@redhat.com wrot=
e:
>>
>>> * Mathieu Desnoyers:
>>>=20
>>>> +#ifdef __cplusplus
>>>> +# if  __cplusplus >=3D 201103L
>>>> +#  define __rseq_static_assert(expr, diagnostic) static_assert (expr,
>>>> diagnostic)
>>>> +#  define __rseq_alignof(type)                   alignof (type)
>>>> +#  define __rseq_alignas(x)                      alignas (x)
>>>> +#  define __rseq_tls_storage_class               thread_local
>>>> +# endif
>>>> +#elif (defined __STDC_VERSION__ ? __STDC_VERSION__ : 0) >=3D 201112L
>>>> +# define __rseq_static_assert(expr, diagnostic)  _Static_assert (expr=
,
>>>> diagnostic)
>>>> +# define __rseq_alignof(type)                    _Alignof (type)
>>>> +# define __rseq_alignas(x)                       _Alignas (x)
>>>> +# define __rseq_tls_storage_class                _Thread_local
>>>> +#endif
>>>=20
>>> This does not seem to work.  I get this with GCC 9:
>>>=20
>>> In file included from /tmp/cih_test_gsrKbC.cc:8:0:
>>> ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sys/rseq.h:42:50: error: attribute ignored
>>> [-Werror=3Dattributes]
>>> #  define __rseq_alignas(x)                      alignas (x)
>>>                                                  ^
>>> ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sys/rseq.h:122:14: note: in expansion of mac=
ro
>>> =E2=80=98__rseq_alignas=E2=80=99
>>>     uint32_t __rseq_alignas (32) version;
>>>              ^
>>
>> Is that when compiling C or C++ code ? If it's C code, I would expect
>> "_Alignas" to be used, not "alignas".
>>
>> Which exact version of gcc do you use ?
>=20
> C++ code.  CXX was set to this compiler at configure time:
>=20
> gcc version 9.3.1 20200408 (Red Hat 9.3.1-2) (GCC)

I think I found the culprit: it should be:

__rseq_alignas (32) uint32_t version;

rather than the other way around.

>=20
>>> In any case, these changes really have to go into the UAPI header first=
.
>>> Only the __thread handling should remain.  Otherwise, we'll have a toug=
h
>>> situation on our hands changing the UAPI header, without introducing
>>> macro definition conflicts.  I'd suggest to stick to the aligned
>>> attribute for the time being, like the current UAPI headers.

OK, so I just remove the __rseq_alignas for now and use "aligned()" instead
like the UAPI header. I plan to keep the other macros for now.

>>
>> OK. Should I do that in a separate patch, or you do it on top of my patc=
hset,
>> or should I re-spin another round of the series ?
>=20
> I think the initial commit should mirror the current UAPI header
> contents.
>=20
> Keep the macros for the UAPI patch though. 8-)  We can pick up these
> changes once they have been merged into Linux.

OK,

Thanks!

Mathieu

>=20
> Thanks,
> Florian

--=20
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com