Did I say "restored when the handler returns"
Mon, 05 Aug 2002 11:46:57 +0000
Did I say "restored when the handler returns"? What doesn't get restored when the handler returns - no matter how the return is done, or longjmped past, or ignoreed completely, or whatever, are the floating point trap bits themselves. This behaviour is common to at least x86, ppc32, and ppc64, and the kernel people think it's the right thing to do. So, we may as well get used to it.
Not that I have any pressing wish to do anything about it immediately, because the MSR-frobbing aspect still needs a conventional(sic) return from the signal handler to set up right, which we don't do at present, so probbaly we need to do some more control stack frobbing stuff.
So, instead I turned my attention to threading. After some discussion at the LSM we decided that co-op userland threads were just going to be not nearly as exciting as "proper" threads. General consensus regarding pthreads was also fairly rapidly arrived at ("let's not go there"), so lately I've been thinking about using clone(). This presents a number of issues
- thread safety is suddenly really important
- stopping other threads from running is going to involve signals
- without-preemption (as a general available-to-the-user construct that he can wrap around arbitrary forms) is hard, slow, messy and a bad idea.
- dynamically bound symbols need something other than their current implementation if they're going to work usefully.
- my evil slow handwavey mmap trick is not going to sowrk when we (a) don't control the scheduler, and (b) are sharing the memory map (including the protections) between all threads. This linux-kernel article looks potentially interesting in that respect, though I suspect that it would still be easier to use PTRACE_ATTACH.