This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFC] nptl: change default stack guard size of threads


On 19/12/17 13:06, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 12/19/2017 01:34 PM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> 
>> Option 1: 64k guard pages for LP64 on AArch64.
> 
>> Option 2: 4k guard pages for LP64 for AArch64
> 
>> Our proposal then, having spoken things through with the Arm engineers
>> here, and taken in to consideration the opinions on this thread, is that
>> we move to two "blessed" configurations of the GCC support for AArch64.
> 
> Are there any Arm engineers who prefer Option 2, or is that just there to accommodate feedback on libc-alpha?
> 
> My main concern was the variance in configurations with Option 1 (compared to Option 2).  To some extent, the
> variance with Option 1 is temporary.  If both Option 1 and 2 are offered, we have permanent variance.  From my
> point of view, that's worth that just going with Option 1.
> 
> So if this is some sort of consensus proposal, as opposed to actual technical requirements which favor Option 2
> in some deployments, I think that's not a good idea, and we should go with Option 1 instead.
> 

well glibc can pretend that only Option 1 is available,
my latest patch assumes 64k probe interval:
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-12/msg00451.html

however Option 1 requires generic code to be changed
for aarch64 only (in the libc and elsewhere) and we
cannot easily do that on all (non-glibc) systems.

it seems to me if there are systems where Option 1
may not provide guaranteed trap on stack overflow
then gcc should have Option 2 for those systems.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]