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 S1753087AbbDCUkl (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 3 Apr 2015 16:40:41 -0400
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:50701 "EHLO
	aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753057AbbDCUki (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 3 Apr 2015 16:40:38 -0400
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 22:42:17 +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: <20150403204217.GH14902@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>
 <20150403173306.GG14902@chrystal.uk.oracle.com>
 <20150403174824.GL3418@pd.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150403174824.GL3418@pd.tnic>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16)
X-Source-IP: userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74]
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 07:48:24PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 07:33:06PM +0200, Quentin Casasnovas wrote:
> > > 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).
> 
> orig_insn=4
> repl1=3
> repl2=5
> 
> .skip 0, 0x90
> .skip 2, 0x90
> 
> I think that still works, only the padding is larger than it needs to
> be. And it is so many bytes larger as len(abs(repl1 - orig_insn)) is.
> 
> In the example above, we'll get two bytes padding while only 1 suffices.
>

Right.

> > Anything wrong with the two different approaches I've suggested in my
> > original mail?
> 
> Right now, I want to have a minimal fix for obvious reasons. We can
> always improve stuff later when there's more time.
> 

If you're happy with the extra padding in such cases then your second
approach looks okay to me.  But IMO, even if taking the '.if' directive
approach is certainly bigger LOC-wise, it should be much easier to review
in a rush than some other .skip trickery.

It all depends on your definition of minimal change really, and whether
that extra padding is acceptable or not for you :)

Quentin