From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
arjan@linux.intel.com, bp@alien8.de,
richard.weinberger@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86: Implement __WARN using UD0
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:14:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170321151446.GV3093@worktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170321140340.urru2lmjko6txwl5@treble>
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 09:03:40AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:19:19PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Since some emulators terminate on UD2, we cannot use it for WARN.
> > + * Since various instruction decoders disagree on the length of UD1,
> > + * we cannot use it either. So use UD0 for WARN.
> > + *
> > + * (binutils knows about "ud1" but {en,de}codes it as 2 bytes, whereas
> > + * our kernel decoder thinks it takes a ModRM byte, which seems consistent
> > + * with various things like the Intel SDM instruction encoding rules)
> > + */
> > +
> > +#define ASM_UD0 ".byte 0x0f, 0xff"
> > +#define ASM_UD1 ".byte 0x0f, 0xb9" /* + ModRM */
> > +#define ASM_UD2 ".byte 0x0f, 0x0b"
>
> Thas ASM_UD1 macro isn't used anywhere.
I have it there for completeness sake, and documentation purposes.
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> > @@ -169,6 +169,41 @@ void ist_end_non_atomic(void)
> > preempt_disable();
> > }
> >
> > +int is_valid_bugaddr(unsigned long addr)
> > +{
> > + unsigned short ud;
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> > + if (addr < PAGE_OFFSET)
> > + return 0;
> > +#else
> > + if ((long)addr > 0)
> > + return 0;
> > +#endif
>
> I think comparing with TASK_SIZE would be more correct and it wouldn't
> need an ifdef.
Dunno about more correct (the TIF_ADDR32 case is irrelevant here), but
yes, that would do away with the #ifdef.
> > + if (probe_kernel_address((unsigned short *)addr, ud))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + return ud == 0x0b0f || ud == 0xff0f;
> > +}
>
> This code would be easier to grok if these were defines IMO.
Would be nice if I could use the same defines; but I can't see how I can
make that happen :/ But sure; I suppose I can add more defines.
> Also, now that some of the BUG-specific functions are now also related
They already were, its just that x86 only now will use the WARN part of
it. I don't feel that should be part of this patch.
> to WARN, they should probably be renamed to describe their new purpose,
> like:
>
> "report_bug" -> "report_bug_or_warning"
> "fixup_bug" -> "fixup_bug_or_warning"
>
> On a related note, if warn and bug are going to continue to use two
> separate ud instructions for the foreseeable future, report_bug() could
> be cleaned up a bit: e.g., for a ud0 instruction, it doesn't make sense
> to call find_bug().
I'm sure you'll break $random arch if you go futz with that. Also, I
think you mean UD2, since that's BUG. We actually need the bug_entry for
WARNs (aka UD0).
Also, you're now optimizing the BUG() code; I don't think anybody cares
about saving a few cycles there. It shouldn't happen in the first place.
> > +static int fixup_bug(struct pt_regs *regs, int trapnr)
> > +{
> > + if (trapnr != X86_TRAP_UD)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + switch (report_bug(regs->ip, regs)) {
> > + case BUG_TRAP_TYPE_NONE:
> > + case BUG_TRAP_TYPE_BUG:
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case BUG_TRAP_TYPE_WARN:
> > + regs->ip += 2;
> > + return 1;
>
> For self-documentation purposes, maybe use a define for the length of
> the ud0 instruction?
Well, UD0 and UD2 really. LENGTH_UD0_OR_UD2 is a bit of a fail, name
wise.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-21 16:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-17 21:19 [PATCH 0/5] x86 optimizations Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-17 21:19 ` [PATCH 1/5] x86: Implement __WARN using UD0 Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-21 14:03 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-03-21 15:14 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2017-03-21 15:17 ` Arjan van de Ven
2017-03-21 15:32 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-03-21 15:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-22 8:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-22 14:18 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-03-17 21:19 ` [PATCH 2/5] bug: Add _ONCE logic to report_bug() Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-17 21:19 ` [PATCH 3/5] atomic: Introduce atomic_try_cmpxchg() Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-17 21:19 ` [PATCH 4/5] refcount: Use atomic_try_cmpxchg() Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-17 21:19 ` [PATCH 5/5] x86,atomic: Use atomic_try_cmpxchg Peter Zijlstra
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=20170321151446.GV3093@worktop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=richard.weinberger@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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).