Basically, what I wonder is how come an x86-64 OS can run a code compiled for x86 machine. I know when first x64 Systems has been introduced, this wasn't a feature of any of them. After that, they somehow managed to do this.
Note that I know that x86 assembly language is a subset of x86-64 assembly language and ISA's is designed in such a way that they can support backward compatibility. But what confuses me here is stack calling conventions. These conventions differ a lot depending on the architecture. For example, in x86, in order to backup frame pointer, proceses pushes where it points to stack(RAM) and pops after it is done. On the other hand, in x86-64, processes doesn't need to update frame pointer at all since all the references is given via stack pointer. And secondly, While in x86 architecture arguments to functions is passed by stack in x86-64, registers are used for that purpose.
Maybe this differences between stack calling conventions of x86-64 and x64 architecture may not affect the way program stack grows as long as different conventions are not used at the same time and this is mostly the case because x32 functions are called by other x32's and same for x64. But, at one point, a function (probably a system function) will call a function whose code is compiled for a x86-64 machine with some arguments, at this point, I am curious about how OS(or some other control unit) handle to get this function work.
Thanks in advance.
Part of the way that the i386/x86-64 architecture is designed is that the CS and other segment registers refer to entries in the GDT. The GDT entries have a few special bits besides the base and limit that describe the operating mode and privilege level of the current running task.
If the CS register refers to a 32-bit code segment, the processor will run in what is essentially i386 compatibility mode. Likewise 64-bit code requires a 64-bit code segment.
So, putting this all together.
When the OS wants to run a 32-bit task, during the task switch into it, it loads a value into CS which refers to a 32-bit code segment. Interrupt handlers also have segment registers associated with them, so when a system call occurs or an interrupt occurs, the handler will switch back to the OS's 64-bit code segment, (allowing the 64-bit OS code to run correctly) and the OS then can do its work and continue scheduling new tasks.
As a follow up with regards to calling convention. Neither i386 or x86-64 require the use of frame pointers. The code is free to do as it pleases. In fact, many compilers (gcc, clang, VS) offer the ability to compile 32-bit code without frame pointers. What is important is that the calling convention is implemented consistently. If all the code expects arguments to be passed on the stack, that's fine, but the called code better agree with that. Likewise, passing via registers is fine too, just everyone has to agree (at least at the library interface level, internal functions can generally do as they please).
Beyond that, just keep in mind that the difference between the two isn't really an issue because every process gets its own private view of memory. A side consequence though is that 32-bit apps can't load 64-bit dlls, and 64-bit apps can't load 32-bit dlls, because a process either has a 32-bit code segment or a 64-bit code segment. It can't be both.
The processor in put into legacy mode, but that requires everything executing at that time to be 32bit code. This switching is handled by the OS.
Windows : It uses WoW64. WoW64 is responsible for changing the processor mode, it also provides the compatible dll and registry functions.
Linux : Until recently Linux used to (like windows) shift to running the processor in legacy mode when ever it started executing 32bit code, you needed all the 32bit glibc libraries installed, and it would break if it tried to work together with 64bit code. Now there are implementing the X32 ABI which should make everything run like smoother and allow 32bit applications to access x64 feature like increased no. of registers. See this article on the x32 abi
PS : I am not very certain on the details of things, but it should give you a start.
Also, this answer combined with Evan Teran's answer probably give a rough picture of everything that is happening.
Related
I am aware that an implementer has a choice of whether he wants to zero a malloc page or let OS give him a zeroed page (for more optimization purposes).
My question is simple - in Ubuntu 14.04 LTS which comes with linux kernel 3.16 and gcc 4.8.4, who will zero my pages? Is it in user land or kernel land?
It can depend on where the memory came from. The calloc code is userland, and will zero a memory page that gets re-used by a process. This happens when the memory is previously used and then freed, but not returned to the OS. However, if the page is newly allocated to the process, it will come already cleared to 0 by the OS (for security purposes), and so does not need to be cleared by calloc. This means calloc can potentially be faster than calling malloc followed by memset, since it can skip the memset if it knows it will already by zeroed.
That depends on the implementer of your standard library, not on the host system. It is not possible to give a specific answer for a particular OS, since it may be the build target of multiple compilers and their libraries - including on other systems, if you consider the possibility of cross-compiling (building on one type of system to target another).
Most implementations I've seen of calloc() use a call of malloc() followed by either a call of memset() or (with some implementations that target unix) a legacy function called bzero() - which is, itself, sometimes replaced by a macro call that expands to a call of memset() in a number of recent versions of libraries.
memset() is often hand-optimised. But, again, it is up to the implementer of the library.
My question is somewhat weird but I will do my best to explain.
Looking at the languages the linux kernel has, I got C and assembly even though I read a text that said [quote] Second iteration of Unix is written completely in C [/quote]
I thought that was misleading but when I said that kernel has assembly code I got 2 questions of the start
What assembly files are in the kernel and what's their use?
Assembly is architecture dependant so how can linux be installed on more than one CPU architecture
And if linux kernel is truly written completely in C than how can it get GCC needed for compiling?
I did a complete find / -name *.s
and just got one assembly file (asm-offset.s) somewhere in the /usr/src/linux-headers-`uname -r/
Somehow I don't think that is helping with the GCC working, so how can linux work without assembly or if it uses assembly where is it and how can it be stable when it depends on the arch.
Thanks in advance
1. Why assembly is used?
Because there are certain things then can be done only in assembly and because assembly results in a faster code. For eg, "you can get access to unusual programming modes of your processor (e.g. 16 bit mode to interface startup, firmware, or legacy code on Intel PCs)".
Read here for more reasons.
2. What assembly file are used?
From: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/arm/README
"The initial entry into the kernel is via head.S, which uses machine
independent code. The machine is selected by the value of 'r1' on
entry, which must be kept unique."
From https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-linuxboot/
"When the bzImage (for an i386 image) is invoked, you begin at ./arch/i386/boot/head.S in the start assembly routine (see Figure 3 for the major flow). This routine does some basic hardware setup and invokes the startup_32 routine in ./arch/i386/boot/compressed/head.S. This routine sets up a basic environment (stack, etc.) and clears the Block Started by Symbol (BSS). The kernel is then decompressed through a call to a C function called decompress_kernel (located in ./arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c). When the kernel is decompressed into memory, it is called. This is yet another startup_32 function, but this function is in ./arch/i386/kernel/head.S."
Apart from these assembly files, lot of linux kernel code has usage of inline assembly.
3. Architecture dependence?
And you are right about it being architecture dependent, that's why the linux kernel code is ported to different architecture.
Linux porting guide
List of supported arch
Things written mainly in assembly in Linux:
Boot code: boots up the machine and sets it up in a state in which it can start executing C code (e.g: on some processors you may need to manually initialize caches and TLBs, on x86 you have to switch to protected mode, ...)
Interrupts/Exceptions/Traps entry points/returns: there you need to do very processor-specific things, e.g: saving registers and reenabling interrupts, and eventually restoring registers and properly returning to user mode. Some exceptions may be handled entirely in assembly.
Instruction emulation: some CPU models may not support certain instructions, may not support unaligned data access, or may not have an FPU. An option is using emulation when getting the corresponding exception.
VDSO: the VDSO is a virtual library that the kernel maps into userspace. It allows e.g: selecting the optimal syscall sequence for the current CPU (on x86 use sysenter/syscall instead of int 0x80 if available), and implementing certain system calls without requiring a context switch (e.g: gettimeofday()).
Atomic operations and locks: Maybe in a future some of these could be written using C11 support for atomic operations.
Copying memory from/to user mode: Besides using an optimized copy, these check for out-of-bounds access.
Optimized routines: the kernel has optimized version of some routines, e.g: crypto routines, memset, clear_page, csum_copy (checksum and copy to another place IP data in one pass), ...
Support for suspend/resume and other ACPI/EFI/firmware thingies
BPF JIT: newer kernels include a JIT compiler for BPF expressions (used for example by tcpdump, secmode mode 2, ...)
...
To support different architectures, Linux has assembly code (re-)written for each architecture it supports (and sometimes, there are several implementations of some code for different platforms using the same CPU architecture). Just look at all the subdirectories under arch/
Assembly is needed for a couple of reasons.
There are many instructions that are needed for the operation of an operating system that have no C equivalent, at least on most processors. A good example on Intel x86/64 processors is the iret instruciton, which returns from hardware/software interrupts. These interrupts are key to handling hardware events (like a keyboard press) and system calls from programs on older processors.
A computer does not start up in a state that is immediately ready for execution of C code. For an Intel example, when execution gets to the startup routine the processor may not be in 32-bit mode (or 64-bit mode), and the stack required by C also may not be ready. There are some other features present in some processors (like paging) which need to be turned on from assembly as well.
However, most of the Linux kernel is written in C, which interfaces with some platform specific C/assembly code through standardized interfaces. By separating the parts in this way, most of the logic of the Linux kernel can be shared between platforms. The build system simply compiles the platform independent and dependent parts together for specific platforms, which results in different executable kernel files for different platforms (and kernel configurations for that matter).
Assembly code in the kernel is generally used for low-level hardware interaction that can't be done directly from C. They're like a platform- specific foundation that's used by higher-level parts of the kernel that are written in C.
The kernel source tree contains assembly code for a variety of systems. When you compile a kernel for a particular type of system (such as an x86 PC), only the appropriate assembly code for that platform is included in the build process.
Linux is not the second version of Unix (or Unix in general). It is Unix compatible, but Unix and Linux have separate histories and, in terms of code base (of their kernels), are completely separate. Linus Torvald's idea was to write an open source Unix.
Some of the lower level things like some of the architecture dependent parts of memory management are done in assembly. The old (but still available) Linux kernel API for x86, int 0x80, is implemented in assembly. There are probably other places in the kernel that are implemented in assembly, but I don't know any others.
When you compile the kernel, you select an architecture to target. Depending on the target, the right assembly files for that architecture are included in the build.
The reason you don't find anything is because you're searching the headers, not the sources. Download a tar ball from kernel.org and search that.
In this page, http://www.x86-64.org/pipermail/discuss/2004-August/005020.html
He said that there is a way to mix 32-bit code and 64-bit code in a application. He assumed the application is 32-bit (in compatibility mode) and then switch to 64-bit mode to execute 64-bit code and vice versa.
Assume my OS is 64-bit linux and my application is 64-bit. I do a far jump to switch to compatibility mode and execute 32-bit code. Does it can work correctly when I do a system call or function call ?
Is there any overhead of mode switching between compatibility mode and 64-bit mode ? I think one of the overhead is I need separate stack for 32-bit and 64-bit.
Could I integrate this idea into JVM, maybe I can dynamic generate 32-bit code in 64-bit JVM, and execute it by mode switching ?
Open-coded syscalls should be fine, since your 32-bit code will use the 32-bit kernel entry point.
Function calls can only be made to other 32-bit code, of course. This includes libc - so your 32-bit code will either have to be self-contained, or you will have to provide thunks for the library functions that it needs. Remember that usually syscalls are not called directly - you normally go via a libc wrapper that will be unavailable to your 32-bit code.
There is certainly an overhead for switching between modes. You should consult your processor documentation to find out what it is.
I have a 32-bit .so binary-only library and I have to generate 64-bit program that uses it.
Is there a way to wrap or convert it, so it can be used with 64-bit program?
No. You can't directly link to 32bit code inside of a 64bit program.
The best option is to compile a 32bit (standalone) program that can run on your 64bit platform (using ia32), and then use a form of inter-process communication to communicate to it from your 64bit program.
For an example of using IPC to run 32-bit plugins from 64-bit code, look at the open source NSPluginWrapper.
It is possible, but not without some serious magic behind the scenes and you will not like the answer. Either emulate a 32 bit CPU (no I am not kidding) or switch the main process back to 32 bit. Emulating may be slow though.
This is a proof of concept of the technique.
Then keep a table of every memory access to and from the 32 bit library and keep them in sync. It is very hard to get to a theoretical completeness, but something workable should be pretty easy, but very tedious.
In most cases, I believe two processes and then IPC between the two may actually be easiest, as suggested othwerwise.
I'm currently in the process of learning assembly language.
I'm using Gas on Linux Mint (32-bit). Using this book:
Programming from the Ground Up.
The machine I'm using has an AMD Turion 64 bit processor, but I'm limited to 2 GB of RAM.
I'm thinking of upgrading my Linux installation to the 64-bit version of Linux Mint, but I'm worried that because the book is targeted at 32-bit x86 architecture that the code examples won't work.
So two questions:
Is there likely to be any problems with the code samples?
Has anyone here noticed any benefits in general in using 64-bit Linux over 32-bit (I've seen some threads on Stack Overflow about this but they are mostly related to Windows Vista vs. Windows XP.)
Your code examples should all still work. 64-bit processors and operating systems can still run 32-bit code in a sort of "compatability mode". Your assembly examples are no different. You may have to provide an extra line of assembly or two (such as .BITS 32) but that's all.
In general, using a 64-bit OS will be faster than using a 32-bit OS. x86_64 has more registers than i386. Since you're working on assembly, you already know what registers are used for... Having more of them means less stuff has to be moved on and off the stack (and other temporary memory) thus your program spends less time managing data and more time working on that data.
Edit: To compile 32-bit code on 64-bit linux using gas, you just use the commandline argument "--32", as noted in the GAS manual
Even if you run Linux 64bit, it is possible to compile and run 32bit binaries on it. I don't know how good Mint's support for that is, I assume you should check.
64bit assembler however is not fully compatible to 32bit, for example you have different (more) registers. There are some specific instructions not available on either platform.
I would say the move to 64bit is not a big deal. You can still write 32bit assembly and then perhaps try to get it also running as 64bit (shouldn't be too hard), as a source of even more programming/learning fun.
Usually 32-bits is plenty so only use 64-bits or more if you really NEED IT.
Best to decide prior to programming if you want to do it as a 32-bit app or
a 64-bit app and then stick to it as mixed mode debugging ca get tricky fast.