Hi, Willy, Thomas
Hi Zhangjin,
I haven't reviewed the rest yet but regarding this point:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 02:12:27PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
- /* find auxv */
- i = 0;
- while (envp[i])
i++;- _auxv = (void *)(envp + i + 1);
Could be simplified a bit:
_auxv = (void *) envp; while (_auxv) _auxv++;
Yeah, it is better, but needs a little change.
_auxv = (void *) envp; while (*_auxv)_auxv++; _auxv++;
Or just:
_auxv = (void*)environ; while (*_auxv++) ;or:
for (_auxv = (void*)environ; *_auxv++; ) ;Please also have a look at the output code, because at low optimization levels, compilers sometimes produce a better code with a local variable than with a global variable in a loop. Thus I wouldn't be that much surprised if at -O0 or -O1 you'd see slightly more compact code using:
Very good suggestion, I did find some interesting results, after removing some local variables, although the text size shrinks, but the total size is the same with -O0/1/2/3/s.
Here is the diff with -O0/1/2/3/s (a REPORT_SIZE macro may be required for this):
$ diff -Nubr startup.old.txt startup.new.txt --- startup.old.txt 2023-07-14 10:22:45.990413661 +0800 +++ startup.new.txt 2023-07-14 10:22:52.278869146 +0800 @@ -2,34 +2,34 @@ sudo strip -s nolibc-test size nolibc-test text data bss dec hex filename - 46872 88 80 47040 b7c0 nolibc-test + 46836 88 80 47004 b79c nolibc-test wc -c nolibc-test 58016 nolibc-test O1: sudo strip -s nolibc-test size nolibc-test text data bss dec hex filename - 27298 88 72 27458 6b42 nolibc-test + 27287 88 72 27447 6b37 nolibc-test wc -c nolibc-test 37536 nolibc-test O2: sudo strip -s nolibc-test size nolibc-test text data bss dec hex filename - 25688 88 72 25848 64f8 nolibc-test + 25672 88 72 25832 64e8 nolibc-test wc -c nolibc-test 37536 nolibc-test O3: sudo strip -s nolibc-test size nolibc-test text data bss dec hex filename - 44020 88 72 44180 ac94 nolibc-test + 44004 88 72 44164 ac84 nolibc-test wc -c nolibc-test 53920 nolibc-test Os: sudo strip -s nolibc-test size nolibc-test text data bss dec hex filename - 20887 88 72 21047 5237 nolibc-test + 20884 88 72 21044 5234 nolibc-test wc -c nolibc-test 33440 nolibc-test
The code with local variables:
void _start_c(long *sp) { int argc, i; char **argv; char **envp; /* silence potential warning: conflicting types for 'main' */ int _nolibc_main(int, char **, char **) __asm__ ("main");
/* * sp : argc <-- argument count, required by main() * argv: argv[0] <-- argument vector, required by main() * argv[1] * ... * argv[argc-1] * null * environ: environ[0] <-- environment variables, required by main() and getenv() * environ[1] * ... * null * _auxv: _auxv[0] <-- auxiliary vector, required by getauxval() * _auxv[1] * ... * null */
/* assign argc and argv */ argc = *sp; argv = (void *)(sp + 1);
/* find environ */ environ = envp = argv + argc + 1;
/* find _auxv */ for (i = 0; *(envp + i); i++) ; _auxv = (void *)(envp + i + 1);
/* go to application */ exit(_nolibc_main(argc, argv, envp)); }
The code with global variables:
void _start_c(long *sp) { int argc; char **argv; /* silence potential warning: conflicting types for 'main' */ int _nolibc_main(int, char **, char **) __asm__ ("main");
/* * sp : argc <-- argument count, required by main() * argv: argv[0] <-- argument vector, required by main() * argv[1] * ... * argv[argc-1] * null * environ: environ[0] <-- environment variables, required by main() and getenv() * environ[1] * ... * null * _auxv: _auxv[0] <-- auxiliary vector, required by getauxval() * _auxv[1] * ... * null */
/* assign argc and argv */ argc = *sp; argv = (void *)(sp + 1);
/* find environ */ environ = argv + argc + 1;
/* find _auxv */ for (_auxv = (void *)environ; *_auxv++;) ;
/* go to application */ exit(_nolibc_main(argc, argv, environ)); }
Which one do you prefer? the one with local variables may be more readable (not that much), the one with global variables has smaller text size (and therefore smaller memory footprint).
BTW, just found an arch-<ARCH>.h bug with -O0, seems the 'optimize("omit-frame-pointer")' attribute not really work as expected with -O0. It uses frame pointer for _start eventually and breaks the stack pointer variable (a push 'rbp' inserted at the begging of _start, so, the real rsp has an offset), so, therefore, it is not able to get the right argc, argv, environ and _auxv with -O0 currently. A solution is reverting _start to pure assembly.
For the above tests, I manually reverted the arch-x86_64.h to:
__asm__( ".text\n" ".weak _start\n" "_start:\n" #ifdef _NOLIBC_STACKPROTECTOR "call __stack_chk_init\n" /* initialize stack protector */ #endif "xor %ebp, %ebp\n" /* zero the stack frame */ "mov %rsp, %rdi\n" /* save stack pointer to %rdi, as arg1 of _start_c */ "and $-16, %rsp\n" /* %rsp must be 16-byte aligned before call */ "call _start_c\n" /* transfer to c runtime */ "hlt\n" /* ensure it does not return */ );
'man gcc' shows:
Most optimizations are completely disabled at -O0 or if an -O level is not set on the command line, even if individual optimization flags are specified.
To want -O0 work again, since now we have C _start_c, is it ok for us to revert the commit 7f8548589661 ("tools/nolibc: make compiler and assembler agree on the section around _start") and the later __no_stack_protector changes?
At the same time, to verify such issues, as Thomas suggested, in this series, we may need to add more startup tests to verify argc, argv, environ, _auxv, do we need to add a standalone run_startup (or run_crt) test entry just like run_syscall? or, let's simply add more in the run_stdlib, like the environ test added by Thomas. seems, the argc test is necessary one currently missing (argc
= 1):
CASE_TEST(argc); EXPECT_GE(1, test_argc, 1); break;
As we summarized before, the related test cases are:
argv0:
CASE_TEST(chmod_argv0); EXPECT_SYSZR(1, chmod(test_argv0, 0555)); break; CASE_TEST(chroot_exe); EXPECT_SYSER(1, chroot(test_argv0), -1, ENOTDIR); break;
environ:
CASE_TEST(chdir_root); EXPECT_SYSZR(1, chdir("/")); chdir(getenv("PWD")); break; CASE_TEST(environ); EXPECT_PTREQ(1, environ, test_envp); break; CASE_TEST(getenv_TERM); EXPECT_STRNZ(1, getenv("TERM")); break; CASE_TEST(getenv_blah); EXPECT_STRZR(1, getenv("blah")); break;
auxv:
CASE_TEST(getpagesize); EXPECT_SYSZR(1, test_getpagesize()); break;
The above tests are in different test group and are not aimed to startup test, we'd better add a run_startup (or run_crt) test group before any other tests, it is a requiremnt of the others, we at least have these ones:
+int run_startup(int min, int max) +{ + int test; + int tmp; + int ret = 0; + + for (test = min; test >= 0 && test <= max; test++) { + int llen = 0; /* line length */ + + /* avoid leaving empty lines below, this will insert holes into + * test numbers. + */ + switch (test + __LINE__ + 1) { + CASE_TEST(argc); EXPECT_GE(1, test_argc, 1); break; + CASE_TEST(argv_addr); EXPECT_PTRNZ(1, test_argv); break; + CASE_TEST(argv_total); EXPECT_EQ(1, environ - test_argv - 1, test_argc); break; + CASE_TEST(argv0_addr); EXPECT_PTRNZ(1, argv0); break; + CASE_TEST(argv0_str); EXPECT_STRNZ(1, argv0); break; + CASE_TEST(argv0_len); EXPECT_GE(1, strlen(argv0), 1); break; + CASE_TEST(environ_addr); EXPECT_PTRNZ(1, environ); break; + CASE_TEST(environ_envp); EXPECT_PTREQ(1, environ, test_envp); break; + CASE_TEST(environ_total); EXPECT_GE(1, (void *)_auxv - (void *)environ - 1, 1); break; + CASE_TEST(_auxv_addr); EXPECT_PTRNZ(1, _auxv); break; + case __LINE__: + return ret; /* must be last */ + /* note: do not set any defaults so as to permit holes above */ + } + } + return ret; +}
Any more?
/* find envp */ environ = argv + argc + 1; /* find auxv */ for (auxv = environ; *auxv++) ; _auxv = auxv;than: /* find envp */ envp = argv + argc + 1; environ = envp;
/* find auxv */ for (_auxv = environ; *_auxv++) ;
Great, `*_auxv++` is a very good trick to avoid duplicated _auxv++, although it is a little hard to read (not that hard in reality) ;-)
Since it's going to become generic code, it's worth running a few tests to see how to best polish it.
Yes, I focused on the big shrinking itself but forgot to polish the _start_c itself ;-)
Best regards, Zhangjin
Thanks, Willy