Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 23:47:52 +0200
From: boris brezillon <>
Subject: Re: TLS (thread-local storage) support

2012/10/16 boris brezillon <>:
> Hi,
> First I'd like to thank Rich for adding TLS support (I started to work
> on it a few weeks ago but never had time to finish it).
> 2012/10/6 Daniel Cegiełka <>:
>> 2012/10/5 Rich Felker <>:
>>> On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 11:29:11PM +0200, Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
>>>> great news! Finally able to compile Go (lang)...
>>> Did Go fail with gcc's emulated TLS in libgcc?
>> I tested Go with sabotage (with fresh musl). I'll try to do it again...
>> gcc in sabotage was compiled without support for TLS, so I didn't
>> expect that it will be successful:
> There's at least one thing (maybe more) missing for go support with
> musl : gcc 'split-stack' support (see and
> I'm also interested in split stack support in musl but for other
> reasons (thread and coroutine stack automatic expansion).
> For x86/x86_64 split stack is implemented using a field inside the
> pthread struct which is accessed via %fs (or %gs for x86_64) and an
> offset.
> Currently this offset is defined at 0x30 (0x70 for x86_64) by the
> is defined (see gcc/config/i386/gnu-user.h or
> gcc/config/i386/gnu-user64.h).
> As far as I know musl does not support stack protection, but we could
> at least patch gcc to define TARGET_THREAD_SPLIT_STACK_OFFSET when
> using musl.
> We also need to reserve a field in the musl pthread struct. There are
> currently two fields named 'unused1' and 'unused2' but I'm not sure
> they're really unused in every supported arch.
> BTW, I'd like to work on a more integrated support of split stack in MUSL :
> 1) support in dynamic linker (see the last point of
> : check split stack notes in
> shared libs (and program ?)
> 2) support in thread implementation : currently when a thread is
> created the stack limit is set afterward (see
> and
> and the stack size is supposed to be 16K (which is the minimum stack
> size). This means we may reallocate a new stack chunk even if the
> previous one (the first one) is not fully used.
> If stack limit is set by thread implementation, this can be set
> appropriately according to the stack size defined by the thread
> creator.
> 3) more optimizations I haven't thought about yet...
4) Compile musl with '-fsplit-stack' and add no_split_stack attribute
to appropriate functions (at least all functions called before
pthread_self_init because %gs or %fs register is unusable before this

5) set main thread stack limit to 0 (pthread_self_init) : the main
thread stack grow is handled by the kernel.

6) add no-split-stack note to every asm file.

7) make split stack support optional (either by checking the
-fsplit-stack option in CFLAGS or with a specific option :
--enable-split-stack) : split stack adds overhead to every functions
(except for those with the 'no_split_stack' attribute).

> Do you have any concern about adding those features in musl ?
> Let me know if you see other issues I haven't noticed.
> Regards,
> Boris

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.