Re: [PATCH 1/4] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v7)

[Martin Schwidefsky]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 16:38:32 -0400
"Carlos O'Donell" <codonell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 3/27/19 5:16 AM, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 11:54:32 -0400 (EDT)
> > Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   
> >>>> +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/s390/bits/rseq.h  
> >> [...]  
> >>>> +
> >>>> +/* Signature required before each abort handler code.  */
> >>>> +#define RSEQ_SIG 0x53053053  
> >>>
> >>> Why not a s390 specific value here?  
> >>
> >> s390 also has the abort handler in a __rseq_failure section:
> >>
> >> #define RSEQ_ASM_DEFINE_ABORT(label, teardown, abort_label)             \
> >>                  ".pushsection __rseq_failure, \"ax\"\n\t"               \
> >>                  ".long " __rseq_str(RSEQ_SIG) "\n\t"                    \
> >>                  __rseq_str(label) ":\n\t"                               \
> >>                  teardown                                                \
> >>                  "j %l[" __rseq_str(abort_label) "]\n\t"                 \
> >>                  ".popsection\n\t"
> >>
> >> Same question applies as powerpc: since disassemblers will try to decode
> >> that instruction, would it be better to define it as a valid one ?
> >>
> >> [...]  
> > 
> > A 4-byte sequence starting with 0x53 is decoded as a "diebr" instruction.
> > And please replace that "j %l[...]" with a "jg %l[...]", the branch target
> > range of the "j" instruction is 64K, not enough for the general case.  
> 
> Why was this particular operated selected?
>   
> So on s390 the RSEQ_SIG will show up as an unexpected "divide to integer"
> instruction that can't be reached by any control flow?
> 
> Can we use a NOP with a unique value in an immediate operand?
> 
> The goal being to have something that won't confuse during a debug
> session, or that the debugger can ignore (like constant pools on Arm)

I was looking at the wrong table in regard to opcode 0x53. The pattern
0x53...... is not a known instruction as far as the disassembler is
concerned. As Mathieu pointed out "diebr" is actually 0xb353....
Sorry about the confusion.

But why do we need this value in the first place if it can not be reached?

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.