From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
julia@ni.com, jeyu@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86/static_call: Add inline static call implementation for x86-64
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 16:17:45 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181129221745.jxxqjsocergfzrb4@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181129202452.56f4j2wdct6qbaqo@treble>
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 02:24:52PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:27:00AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:08 AM Linus Torvalds
> > <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:58 AM Linus Torvalds
> > > <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In contrast, if the call was wrapped in an inline asm, we'd *know* the
> > > > compiler couldn't turn a "call wrapper(%rip)" into anything else.
> > >
> > > Actually, I think I have a better model - if the caller is done with inline asm.
> > >
> > > What you can do then is basically add a single-byte prefix to the
> > > "call" instruction that does nothing (say, cs override), and then
> > > replace *that* with a 'int3' instruction.
> > >
> > > Boom. Done.
> > >
> > > Now, the "int3" handler can just update the instruction in-place, but
> > > leave the "int3" in place, and then return to the next instruction
> > > byte (which is just the normal branch instruction without the prefix
> > > byte).
> > >
> > > The cross-CPU case continues to work, because the 'int3' remains in
> > > place until after the IPI.
> >
> > Hmm, cute. But then the calls are in inline asm, which results in
> > giant turds like we have for the pvop vcalls. And, if they start
> > being used more generally, we potentially have ABI issues where the
> > calling convention isn't quite what the asm expects, and we explode.
> >
> > I propose a different solution:
> >
> > As in this patch set, we have a direct and an indirect version. The
> > indirect version remains exactly the same as in this patch set. The
> > direct version just only does the patching when all seems well: the
> > call instruction needs to be 0xe8, and we only do it when the thing
> > doesn't cross a cache line. Does that work? In the rare case where
> > the compiler generates something other than 0xe8 or crosses a cache
> > line, then the thing just remains as a call to the out of line jmp
> > trampoline. Does that seem reasonable? It's a very minor change to
> > the patch set.
>
> Maybe that would be ok. If my math is right, we would use the
> out-of-line version almost 5% of the time due to cache misalignment of
> the address.
BTW, this means that if any of a trampoline's callers crosses cache
boundaries then we won't be able to poison the trampoline. Which is
kind of sad.
--
Josh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-29 22:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 120+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-26 13:54 [PATCH v2 0/4] Static calls Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-26 13:54 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] compiler.h: Make __ADDRESSABLE() symbol truly unique Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-27 8:49 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-11-26 13:54 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] static_call: Add static call infrastructure Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-26 13:54 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] x86/static_call: Add out-of-line static call implementation Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-26 15:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-26 16:19 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-26 13:55 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] x86/static_call: Add inline static call implementation for x86-64 Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-26 16:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-26 17:10 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-26 17:56 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-26 20:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-26 20:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-26 21:26 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-27 8:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-27 8:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-29 6:05 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-29 9:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-29 13:11 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-29 13:37 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-29 14:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-29 14:42 ` Jiri Kosina
2018-11-29 16:33 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-29 16:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-29 16:59 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-29 17:10 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-29 22:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-29 22:14 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-29 22:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-29 22:25 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-29 22:30 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-29 17:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-29 17:20 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-29 17:21 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-29 17:41 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-29 17:45 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-29 17:52 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-29 17:49 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-29 18:37 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-29 16:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-11-29 16:55 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-29 17:02 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-29 17:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-29 17:31 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-29 17:35 ` Jiri Kosina
2018-11-29 17:13 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-29 17:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-11-29 17:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-29 17:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-11-29 17:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-11-29 17:58 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-29 18:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-11-29 18:47 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-29 18:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-11-29 19:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-11-29 19:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-12-10 23:58 ` Pavel Machek
2018-12-11 1:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-11-29 19:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-29 19:27 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-29 20:24 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-29 22:17 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
2018-11-29 23:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-11-30 16:27 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-12-11 9:41 ` David Laight
2018-12-11 17:19 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-12-12 18:29 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-30 16:42 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-30 18:39 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-30 19:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-11-30 20:18 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-30 20:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-30 20:59 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-30 21:01 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-30 21:13 ` Jiri Kosina
2018-11-30 21:10 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-29 19:16 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-29 19:22 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-29 19:27 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-30 22:16 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2018-11-30 22:24 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-29 19:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-11-29 19:28 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-29 19:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-29 20:12 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-29 18:00 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-29 18:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-11-29 18:55 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-29 17:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-11-29 17:35 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-26 18:28 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-26 20:14 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-27 8:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-26 16:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-26 16:11 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-11-26 16:33 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-26 16:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-26 16:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-26 14:01 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] Static calls Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-26 20:54 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-11-26 22:24 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-11-26 22:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-12-04 23:08 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-12-04 23:41 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-12-05 15:04 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-12-05 23:36 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-12-07 16:06 ` Edward Cree
2018-12-07 16:49 ` Edward Cree
2018-12-11 18:05 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-12-12 5:59 ` Nadav Amit
2018-12-12 17:11 ` Edward Cree
2018-12-12 17:47 ` [RFC/WIP PATCH 0/2] dynamic calls Edward Cree
2018-12-12 17:50 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] static_call: fix out-of-line static call implementation Edward Cree
2018-12-12 17:52 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] net: core: rather hacky PoC implementation of dynamic calls Edward Cree
2018-12-12 18:14 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] Static calls Nadav Amit
2018-12-12 18:33 ` Edward Cree
2018-12-12 21:15 ` Nadav Amit
2018-12-12 21:36 ` Edward Cree
2018-12-12 21:45 ` Nadav Amit
2018-12-10 23:57 ` Pavel Machek
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=20181129221745.jxxqjsocergfzrb4@treble \
--to=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=David.Laight@aculab.com \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jbaron@akamai.com \
--cc=jeyu@kernel.org \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=julia@ni.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.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).