From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <imun@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtpng3.m.smailru.net (smtpng3.m.smailru.net [94.100.177.149])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256
 bits)) (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6488E45C305
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Fri,  4 Dec 2020 20:04:02 +0300 (MSK)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 20:03:59 +0300
From: Igor Munkin <imun@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <20201204170359.GD5396@tarantool.org>
References: <a0b974caa57b980eddaf94ce26f2c7968855e95b.1607088022.git.imun@tarantool.org>
 <20201204162441.GC5396@tarantool.org>
 <X8pn6xrbagR9B4NX@tarantool.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <X8pn6xrbagR9B4NX@tarantool.org>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit] x64: Fix __call metamethod
	return dispatch.
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Alexander V. Tikhonov" <avtikhon@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

Sasha,

On 04.12.20, Alexander V. Tikhonov wrote:
> Hi Igor, thanks for the patch, as I see no new degradations found [1],
> patch LGTM.

Great, thanks!

Kirill, please proceed with the patch.

> 
> [1] - https://gitlab.com/tarantool/tarantool/-/pipelines/225349795
> 
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 07:24:41PM +0300, Igor Munkin wrote:
> > Sasha,
> > 
> > Could you please confirm whether CI is OK?
> > 
> > On 04.12.20, Igor Munkin wrote:
> > > From: Mike Pall <mike>
> > > 
> > > After linking new cframe to the chain KBASEa still stores the address of
> > > the previous one. If the execution proceeds to <lj_vmeta_call> KBASE
> > > value (i.e. low 32 bits of the stored address) might be equal to the
> > > current BASE address value so the execution takes the invalid path. Such
> > > address clashing occurs only on x86_64 platform with disabled LJ_GC64,
> > > so 64-bit registers have to be compared in x64 build.
> > > 
> > > NB: Though there is only 32-bit load to restore BASE value prior to the
> > > comparison, the high 32 bits of RDX are reset to zeros, according to x86
> > > long mode semantics.
> > > 
> > > Igor Munkin:
> > > * backported the original patch to tarantool/luajit repo
> > > * extended the original commit message with the rationale
> > > 
> > > For more info and explanation see LuaJIT/LuaJIT#636.
> > > 
> > > Relates to tarantool/tarantool#4518
> > > Relates to tarantool/tarantool#4649
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Igor Munkin <imun@tarantool.org>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > Issues:
> > > * https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/4518
> > > * https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/4649
> > > Branch:
> > > * https://github.com/tarantool/luajit/tree/imun/gh-4518-cmp-64-bit-regs-in-vmeta-call
> > > 
> > > CI is kinda green, considering C6 EOL and the corresponding failures:
> > > * https://gitlab.com/tarantool/tarantool/-/pipelines/225349795
> > > 
> > > @ChangeLog:
> > > * Fixed address clashing occurring while __call metamethod dispatching
> > >   (gh-4518, gh-4649).
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately, there is neither test nor reproducer for this failure, so
> > > we'll know that the patch works only on production installations.
> > > 
> > 
> > <snipped>
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Best regards,
> > IM

-- 
Best regards,
IM