uweigand added inline comments.
================ Comment at: compiler-rt/lib/tsan/rtl/tsan_platform_posix.cpp:123 +#if defined(__s390x__) + ProtectRange(HiAppMemEnd(), 0xfffffffffffff000ull); +#endif ---------------- iii wrote: > uweigand wrote: > > Did you test this on older kernels without 5-level page table support? I > > believe the allocation / mprotect may fail on those ... > No, not really. Would it make sense to probe here? E.g. first try > 0xfffffffffffff000, then 0x20000000000000. Or is there a way to query > user_addr_max() / TASK_SIZE_MAX / TASK_SIZE? I don't know of any way to query this. You can simply do the allocation in stages (first to the top of the three-pagetable range, then four, then five), and ignore failures. As an unfortunate side effect this will force the kernel to allocate five levels of page tables even when unnecessary, but I don't think there's anything we can do about that. ================ Comment at: compiler-rt/lib/tsan/rtl/tsan_rtl_s390x.S:22 + CFI_REL_OFFSET(%r2, R2_REL_OFFSET) + CFI_REL_OFFSET(%r3, R3_REL_OFFSET) + stmg %r14, %r15, R14_REL_OFFSET(%r15) ---------------- iii wrote: > uweigand wrote: > > Do we need CFI for r2/r3 ? Those are call-clobbered any cannot be unwound > > normally anyway ... > I'm not quite sure, but glibc does this (e.g. in > sysdeps/s390/s390-64/dl-trampoline.h), so I figured I'll do this here as well > just in case. Huh. Well I guess it doesn't hurt either way. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D105629/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D105629 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
