Fatal exceptions on context-switching for more than two isolated threads

[Joel Sherrill]

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 5:00 PM Utkarsh Rai <utkarsh.rai60 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 11:39 PM Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Utkarsh,
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 4:59 AM Sebastian Huber
>> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 19/11/2020 11:47, Utkarsh Rai wrote:
>> >
>> > >     There are a couple of other areas in RTEMS in which the stack of
>> > >     another
>> > >     thread may be accessed (events, message queues, signals). How did
>> you
>> > >     solve this?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > When we enable the thread stack protection, all the services in which
>> > > a different stack is accessed becomes invalid ( This will have to be
>> > > documented  ).
>> > > The user has to share the stack of the threads that will be using
>> > > services like message queue with each other from the application using
>> > > mmap(),shm_open(), etc. (This was a part of the work I did during
>> GSoC).
>> >
>> > This is a bit too restrictive from my point of view. Consider for
>> > example this very common use of rtems_event_receive():
>> >
>> > rtems_event_set events;
>> >
>> > rtems_event_receive(..., &events, ...);
>> >
>> Let's try to keep the technical discussion on the mailing list.
>
>
> Oh sorry, I somehow forgot to cc the mailing list.
>
>
>> I
>> agree with Sebastian's point here, which is well taken. Maybe it would
>> be good for you to determine the set of tests and from that the
>> features that break with strict task isolation. This way, we can
>> determine whether each is better handled as imposing a requirement on
>> the user, e.g., to mmap/share explicitly in case they want to pass
>> data (such as with an mq), or if RTEMS needs to make it work
>> implicitly such as with event sets and maybe these iterators.
>>
>
I believe that sending a message that unblocks a thread will have to
disable the protection.

The approach of identifying the few places in RTEMS that can legitimately
be expected to copy from one thread to another thread stack can be
identified and protection disabled for those segments of code. This would
at least properly annotate the known cases via communication and
synchronization and you could come back later and possibly tighten those
restrictions.

>
>> Gedare
>>
>
>
> Ok.
>
>
>>
>> > --
>> > embedded brains GmbH
>> > Sebastian HUBER
>> > Dornierstr. 4
>> > 82178 Puchheim
>> > Germany
>> > email: sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
>> > Phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 16
>> > Fax:   +49-89-18 94 741 - 08
>> > PGP: Public key available on request.
>> >
>> > embedded brains GmbH
>> > Registergericht: Amtsgericht München
>> > Registernummer: HRB 157899
>> > Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Peter Rasmussen, Thomas Dörfler
>> > Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier:
>> https://embedded-brains.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
>> >
>>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at rtems.org
> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20201119/453aca48/attachment-0001.html>