RE: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: implement support for static call trampolines

From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Ard Biesheuvel' <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	"Quentin Perret" <qperret@google.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: implement support for static call trampolines
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 15:03:07 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cf2bf7a61a0a4fca8425b96e139d71e2@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXEKASsYJMHHNA=uNGTnLMoXO_4BP0--1k7cEfZZupdsog@mail.gmail.com>

From: Ard Biesheuvel
> Sent: 25 October 2021 15:55
> 
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 at 16:47, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 04:19:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 04:08:37PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >
> > > > > Ooohh, but what if you go from !func to NOP.
> > > > >
> > > > > assuming:
> > > > >
> > > > >         .literal = 0
> > > > >         BTI C
> > > > >         RET
> > > > >
> > > > > Then
> > > > >
> > > > >         CPU0                    CPU1
> > > > >
> > > > >         [S] literal = func      [I] NOP
> > > > >         [S] insn[1] = NOP       [L] x16 = literal (NULL)
> > > > >                                 b x16
> > > > >                                 *BANG*
> > > > >
> > > > > Is that possible? (total lack of memory ordering etc..)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The CBZ will branch to the RET instruction if x16 == 0x0, so this
> > > > should not happen.
> > >
> > > Oooh, I missed that :/ I was about to suggest writing the address of a
> > > bare 'ret' trampoline instead of NULL into the literal.
> >
> > Perhaps a little something like so.. Shaves 2 instructions off each
> > trampoline.
> >
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/static_call.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/static_call.h
> > @@ -11,9 +11,7 @@
> >             "   hint    34      /* BTI C */                             \n" \
> >                 insn "                                                  \n" \
> >             "   ldr     x16, 0b                                         \n" \
> > -           "   cbz     x16, 1f                                         \n" \
> >             "   br      x16                                             \n" \
> > -           "1: ret                                                     \n" \
> >             "   .popsection                                             \n")
> >
> >  #define ARCH_DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_TRAMP(name, func)                      \
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/patching.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/patching.c
> > @@ -90,6 +90,11 @@ int __kprobes aarch64_insn_write(void *a
> >         return __aarch64_insn_write(addr, &i, AARCH64_INSN_SIZE);
> >  }
> >
> > +asm("__static_call_ret:                \n"
> > +    "  ret                     \n")
> > +
> 
> This breaks BTI as it lacks the landing pad, and it will be called indirectly.
> 
> > +extern void __static_call_ret(void);
> > +
> 
> Better to have an ordinary C function here (with consistent linkage),
> but we need to take the address in a way that works with Clang CFI.
> 
> As the two additional instructions are on an ice cold path anyway, I'm
> not sure this is an obvious improvement tbh.

If my sums are correct the code block is exactly 32 bytes.
So no point saving an instruction.
But you could have:
		.long 1f
	label:
		bti  c
		nop/branch
		ldr  x16, 0b
		br   x16
	1:    bti  c
		ret

That is all self-contained.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)