From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:56:01 +0000
Subject: [PATCH v5sub2 1/8] arm64: add support for module PLTs
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu_dXEQ1U2XY2=xX7R8MoPB0jKM7Vh3zgZB9tBuMfQYuGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1454332178-4414-2-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
 <20160225160714.GA16546@arm.com>
 <CAKv+Gu94LAAwj2f9Sj9imn68V0VTF+NOtUPsE3tQnVzNDhAATw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160225162622.GC16546@arm.com>
 <CAKv+Gu8Qx21M=ymne1S4CQUFrXKHTnWFygGBLtXbxiUD9GkiWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160225164208.GD16546@arm.com>
 <CAKv+Gu-REUdVJF-_wGU=LRaVRZqsD9bgny9S52pMLp+Es4E-1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160225164630.GF16546@arm.com>
 <CAKv+Gu8GYhPeXvgpAoHxYTYfqEHLqqLHVU9U6o3nvxew8dGo6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKv+Gu_dXEQ1U2XY2=xX7R8MoPB0jKM7Vh3zgZB9tBuMfQYuGg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160225165601.GG16546@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 05:50:17PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 25 February 2016 at 17:49, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On 25 February 2016 at 17:46, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 05:43:35PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>> On 25 February 2016 at 17:42, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> >>> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 05:33:25PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>> >> AFAIK, gcc never uses x18 (the platform register) so we may be able to
> >>> >> use that instead. We'd need confirmation from the toolchain guys,
> >>> >> though ...
> >>> >
> >>> > In fact, a better thing to do is probably for the atomic code to
> >>> > save/restore those register explicitly and then remove them from the
> >>> > cflags above.
> >>> >
> >>> > I'll try hacking something together...
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> That would be more correct, indeed. Also, the PLT can only use br
> >>> <reg> so it will always enter the callee with the preserved value
> >>> stacked, and so the callee needs to be modified in any case.
> >>
> >> Wait -- why does the callee need to be modified here? It has no idea
> >> about whether or not it was invoked via a PLT.
> >>
> >
> > No, it doesn't, and that is exactly the problem: the PLT must end in a
> > br <reg> instruction because that is the only branch instruction with
> > unlimited range. That means you will always enter the callee with its
> > address in some register rather than the value that should have been
> > preserved. I don't see a way to manage that from the callee
> >
> 
> *caller! dammit

The caller can do:

save x16, 17
bl plt
restore x16, x17

the plt will do:

get_addr_of_callee_into_x16_and_clobber_x17_or_something
br callee

then the callee will be compiled with all those weird options, but *not*
the ones specifying x16 and x17. That means it can happily use those guys
as scratch, because the caller will take care of them.

Will