From: Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst.de> To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>, Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@arm.com>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] arm64: implement ftrace with regs Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2019 12:05:43 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20190105110543.GA4298@lst.de> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20190104224145.GA28236@lst.de> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 11:41:45PM +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote: > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 01:06:48PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 17:50:18 +0000 > > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > At Linux Plumbers, I had a conversation with Steve Rostedt, and we came > > > to the conclusion that (withut heavyweight synchronization) patching two > > > NOPs at runtime isn't safe, since a CPU might have executed the first > > > NOP as a NOP before another CPU patches both instructions. So a CPU > > > might execute: > > > > > > NOP > > > BL ftrace_regs_caller > > > > > > ... rather than the expected: > > > > > > MOV X9, X30 > > > BL ftrace_regs_caller > > > > > > ... and therefore X9 contains some UNKNOWN value, rather than the > > > original LR value. > > I'm perfectly aware of that; an earlier version had barriers, attempting > to avoid just that, which Mark(?) wrote weren't neccessary. > > But is this a realistic scenario? All function entries are aligned 8 bytes. > Are there arm64 implementations out there that fetch only 4 bytes and > give a chance to mess with the 2nd 4 bytes? You at arm.com should know, and > I won't be surprised if the answer is a weird "yes". Or maybe it's just > another erratum lurking somewhere... > > My point is: those 2 insn will _never_ be split by any alignment > boundary > 8; does that mean anything, have you considered this? Forget that. Steve mentioned the keyword *interrupt*, which creates a completely different situation. In short, only the instruction pointer will be saved; and i-cache and pipeline will be freshly reloaded on return, so this threat is highly unlikely (interrupt taken exactly after 1st nop), but not impossible. "Puking horses..." as we say in German. > > > I wonder if we could solve that by patching the kernel at build-time, to > > > add the MOV X9, X30 in place of the first NOP. If we were to do that, we > > > could also update the addresses to pooint at the second NOP, simplifying > > > the changes to the runtime code. > > > > You can also patch it at boot up when there's only one CPU running, and > > interrupts are disabled. > > May I remind about possible performance hits? Even the NOPs had a tiny impact > on certain in-order implementations. I'd rather switch between the mov and > a "b +2". This one however still holds. Torsten
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst.de> To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>, Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@arm.com>, live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] arm64: implement ftrace with regs Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2019 12:05:43 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20190105110543.GA4298@lst.de> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20190104224145.GA28236@lst.de> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 11:41:45PM +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote: > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 01:06:48PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 17:50:18 +0000 > > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > At Linux Plumbers, I had a conversation with Steve Rostedt, and we came > > > to the conclusion that (withut heavyweight synchronization) patching two > > > NOPs at runtime isn't safe, since a CPU might have executed the first > > > NOP as a NOP before another CPU patches both instructions. So a CPU > > > might execute: > > > > > > NOP > > > BL ftrace_regs_caller > > > > > > ... rather than the expected: > > > > > > MOV X9, X30 > > > BL ftrace_regs_caller > > > > > > ... and therefore X9 contains some UNKNOWN value, rather than the > > > original LR value. > > I'm perfectly aware of that; an earlier version had barriers, attempting > to avoid just that, which Mark(?) wrote weren't neccessary. > > But is this a realistic scenario? All function entries are aligned 8 bytes. > Are there arm64 implementations out there that fetch only 4 bytes and > give a chance to mess with the 2nd 4 bytes? You at arm.com should know, and > I won't be surprised if the answer is a weird "yes". Or maybe it's just > another erratum lurking somewhere... > > My point is: those 2 insn will _never_ be split by any alignment > boundary > 8; does that mean anything, have you considered this? Forget that. Steve mentioned the keyword *interrupt*, which creates a completely different situation. In short, only the instruction pointer will be saved; and i-cache and pipeline will be freshly reloaded on return, so this threat is highly unlikely (interrupt taken exactly after 1st nop), but not impossible. "Puking horses..." as we say in German. > > > I wonder if we could solve that by patching the kernel at build-time, to > > > add the MOV X9, X30 in place of the first NOP. If we were to do that, we > > > could also update the addresses to pooint at the second NOP, simplifying > > > the changes to the runtime code. > > > > You can also patch it at boot up when there's only one CPU running, and > > interrupts are disabled. > > May I remind about possible performance hits? Even the NOPs had a tiny impact > on certain in-order implementations. I'd rather switch between the mov and > a "b +2". This one however still holds. Torsten _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-05 11:05 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-01-04 14:10 [PATCH v6] arm64: implement ftrace with regs Torsten Duwe 2019-01-04 14:10 ` Torsten Duwe 2019-01-04 17:50 ` Mark Rutland 2019-01-04 17:50 ` Mark Rutland 2019-01-04 18:06 ` Steven Rostedt 2019-01-04 18:06 ` Steven Rostedt 2019-01-04 22:41 ` Torsten Duwe 2019-01-04 22:41 ` Torsten Duwe 2019-01-05 11:05 ` Torsten Duwe [this message] 2019-01-05 11:05 ` Torsten Duwe 2019-01-05 20:00 ` Steven Rostedt 2019-01-05 20:00 ` Steven Rostedt 2019-01-07 11:19 ` Mark Rutland 2019-01-07 11:19 ` Mark Rutland 2019-01-14 12:13 ` Balbir Singh 2019-01-14 12:13 ` Balbir Singh 2019-01-14 12:26 ` Mark Rutland 2019-01-14 12:26 ` Mark Rutland 2019-01-16 15:56 ` Julien Thierry 2019-01-16 15:56 ` Julien Thierry 2019-01-16 18:01 ` Julien Thierry 2019-01-16 18:01 ` Julien Thierry 2019-01-07 4:57 ` Amit Daniel Kachhap 2019-01-07 4:57 ` Amit Daniel Kachhap 2019-01-16 9:57 ` Julien Thierry 2019-01-16 9:57 ` Julien Thierry 2019-01-16 10:08 ` Julien Thierry 2019-01-16 10:08 ` Julien Thierry 2019-01-17 15:48 ` Torsten Duwe 2019-01-17 15:48 ` Torsten Duwe
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20190105110543.GA4298@lst.de \ --to=duwe@lst.de \ --cc=amit.kachhap@arm.com \ --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \ --cc=arnd@arndb.de \ --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \ --cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \ --cc=julien.thierry@arm.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \ --cc=mingo@redhat.com \ --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \ --cc=takahiro.akashi@linaro.org \ --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.