linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
	"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	live-patching@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] powerpc/modules: Don't try to restore r2 after a sibling call
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:08:38 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <fdb6b0b6-f77a-4c97-f74b-d5e2a04cb324@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171114155323.3sjxx3eykinnl2ea@treble>

On Tuesday 14 November 2017 09:23 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 03:59:21PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
>> Kamalesh Babulal wrote:
>>> From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> When attempting to load a livepatch module, I got the following error:
>>>
>>>   module_64: patch_module: Expect noop after relocate, got 3c820000
>>>
>>> The error was triggered by the following code in
>>> unregister_netdevice_queue():
>>>
>>>   14c:   00 00 00 48     b       14c <unregister_netdevice_queue+0x14c>
>>>                          14c: R_PPC64_REL24      net_set_todo
>>>   150:   00 00 82 3c     addis   r4,r2,0
>>>
>>> GCC didn't insert a nop after the branch to net_set_todo() because it's
>>> a sibling call, so it never returns.  The nop isn't needed after the
>>> branch in that case.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/powerpc/kernel/module_64.c | 4 ++++
>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/module_64.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/module_64.c
>>> index 39b01fd..9e5391f 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/module_64.c
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/module_64.c
>>> @@ -489,6 +489,10 @@ static int restore_r2(u32 *instruction, struct module *me)
>>>  	if (is_early_mcount_callsite(instruction - 1))
>>>  		return 1;
>>>
>>> +	/* Sibling calls don't return, so they don't need to restore r2 */
>>> +	if (instruction[-1] == PPC_INST_BRANCH)
>>> +		return 1;
>>> +
>>
>> This looks quite fragile, unless we know for sure that gcc will _always_
>> emit this instruction form for sibling calls with relocations.
>>
>> As an alternative, does it make sense to do the following check instead?
>> 	if ((instr_is_branch_iform(insn) || instr_is_branch_bform(insn))
>> 		&& !(insn & 0x1))
>
> Yes, good point.  How about something like this?
>
> (completely untested because I don't have access to a box at the moment)

Reviewed-and-tested-by: Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

>
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/code-patching.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/code-patching.h
> index abef812de7f8..302e4368debc 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/code-patching.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/code-patching.h
> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ int patch_branch(unsigned int *addr, unsigned long target, int flags);
>  int patch_instruction(unsigned int *addr, unsigned int instr);
>
>  int instr_is_relative_branch(unsigned int instr);
> +int instr_is_link_branch(unsigned int instr);
>  int instr_is_branch_to_addr(const unsigned int *instr, unsigned long addr);
>  unsigned long branch_target(const unsigned int *instr);
>  unsigned int translate_branch(const unsigned int *dest,
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/module_64.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/module_64.c
> index 9cb007bc7075..b5148a206b4d 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/module_64.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/module_64.c
> @@ -487,11 +487,13 @@ static bool is_early_mcount_callsite(u32 *instruction)
>     restore r2. */
>  static int restore_r2(u32 *instruction, struct module *me)
>  {
> -	if (is_early_mcount_callsite(instruction - 1))
> +	u32 *prev_insn = instruction - 1;
> +
> +	if (is_early_mcount_callsite(prev_insn))
>  		return 1;
>
>  	/* Sibling calls don't return, so they don't need to restore r2 */
> -	if (instruction[-1] == PPC_INST_BRANCH)
> +	if (!instr_is_link_branch(*prev_insn))
>  		return 1;
>
>  	if (*instruction != PPC_INST_NOP) {
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c b/arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c
> index c9de03e0c1f1..4727fafd37e4 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c
> @@ -304,6 +304,12 @@ int instr_is_relative_branch(unsigned int instr)
>  	return instr_is_branch_iform(instr) || instr_is_branch_bform(instr);
>  }
>
> +int instr_is_link_branch(unsigned int instr)
> +{
> +	return (instr_is_branch_iform(instr) || instr_is_branch_bform(instr)) &&
> +	       (instr & BRANCH_SET_LINK);
> +}
> +
>  static unsigned long branch_iform_target(const unsigned int *instr)
>  {
>  	signed long imm;
>


-- 
cheers,
Kamalesh.

  reply	other threads:[~2017-11-15  5:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-11-14  9:29 [PATCH v4 0/3] ppc64le: Add REL24 relocation support of livepatch symbols Kamalesh Babulal
2017-11-14  9:29 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] kernel/modules: " Kamalesh Babulal
2017-12-12 11:39   ` [v4, " Michael Ellerman
2017-11-14  9:29 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] powerpc/modules: Don't try to restore r2 after a sibling call Kamalesh Babulal
2017-11-14 10:29   ` Naveen N. Rao
2017-11-14 15:53     ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-11-15  5:38       ` Kamalesh Babulal [this message]
2017-11-15  9:28       ` Naveen N. Rao
2017-11-16  1:26         ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-11-16 13:09           ` Naveen N. Rao
2017-11-16 17:45             ` [PATCH v4.2] " Josh Poimboeuf
2017-11-17  8:17               ` Kamalesh Babulal
2017-11-18  8:33                 ` Naveen N. Rao
2017-12-12 11:39               ` [v4.2] " Michael Ellerman
2017-11-14  9:29 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] powerpc/modules: Improve restore_r2() error message Kamalesh Babulal
2017-12-06  4:32   ` Michael Ellerman
2017-12-12 11:39   ` [v4,3/3] " Michael Ellerman

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=fdb6b0b6-f77a-4c97-f74b-d5e2a04cb324@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
    --cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).