From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752660AbbDCRba (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 3 Apr 2015 13:31:30 -0400
Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:50195 "EHLO
	userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752536AbbDCRb2 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 3 Apr 2015 13:31:28 -0400
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 19:33:06 +0200
From: Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@oracle.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@oracle.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/xsave: Robustify and merge macros
Message-ID: <20150403173306.GG14902@chrystal.uk.oracle.com>
References: <1427980282-25929-1-git-send-email-bp@alien8.de>
 <20150402155210.GB6703@chrystal.uk.oracle.com>
 <20150402161259.GE3483@pd.tnic>
 <20150403140630.GD14902@chrystal.uk.oracle.com>
 <20150403141426.GE14902@chrystal.uk.oracle.com>
 <20150403152324.GG3418@pd.tnic>
 <20150403154055.GF14902@chrystal.uk.oracle.com>
 <20150403170625.GJ3418@pd.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150403170625.GJ3418@pd.tnic>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16)
X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 07:06:25PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 05:40:55PM +0200, Quentin Casasnovas wrote:
> > So yeah I still think we're not properly padding, if you take my earlier
> > example where repl2 = 5 bytes, repl1 = 4 bytes and orin_insn = 3.
> > 
> > I'll let you re-read my original mail and come back to me to tell me what'd
> > I really miss! :)
> 
> Dammit, dammit, dammit!
> 
> And I thought this aspect was taken care of. I went into the old
> branches where I had done this and there I have:
> 
> +#define OLDINSTR_2(oldinstr, num1, num2)                               \
> +       __OLDINSTR(oldinstr, num1)                                      \
> +       ".skip -(((" alt_rlen(num2) ")-(" alt_rlen(num1) ")) > 0) * "   \
> +               "((" alt_rlen(num2) ")-(" alt_rlen(num1) ")),0x90\n"    \
> +       alt_end_marker ":\n"
> +
> 
> without the size of the orig_insn factored in into the padding.
> 
> And that would work for your example because it would add 1+1 bytes
> padding.
> 
> Basically, the idea was:
> 
> .skip len(repl1) - len(orig), 0x90
> .skip len(repl2) - len(repl1), 0x90
> 
> BUT!, for some reason I changed it to what's there now and I can't
> remember why anymore.

I think it would not work in the case where repl1 is smaller or equal than
orig_insn (i.e. no padding in the first .skip) but orig_insn is strictly
smaller than repl2 (since we're never comparing repl2 with insn in this
new-old code).

Anything wrong with the two different approaches I've suggested in my
original mail?  One is using a one-liner .skip directive inspired by yours,
and the other is using .if directives.  FWIW I think exploding the logic
using conditionnals '.if' is way more readable and less error-prone.

Quentin