From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
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 Cartwright <julia@ni.com>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Static calls
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 09:04:22 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181205150422.mlrjcm5rm26ozg5j@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <EE66E7C9-5735-48B3-A001-E9FCDA46E177@amacapital.net>
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 03:41:01PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
> > On Dec 4, 2018, at 3:08 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Where did this end up BTW?
> >
> > I know that there's controversy about the
> > CONFIG_HAVE_STATIC_CALL_OPTIMIZED option, but I don't think the
> > CONFIG_HAVE_STATIC_CALL_UNOPTIMIZED version was controversial. From the
> > v1 patch 0 description:
> >
> > There are three separate implementations, depending on what the arch
> > supports:
> >
> > 1) CONFIG_HAVE_STATIC_CALL_OPTIMIZED: patched call sites - requires
> > objtool and a small amount of arch code
> >
> > 2) CONFIG_HAVE_STATIC_CALL_UNOPTIMIZED: patched trampolines - requires
> > a small amount of arch code
> >
> > 3) If no arch support, fall back to regular function pointers
> >
> > My benchmarks showed the best improvements with the
> > STATIC_CALL_OPTIMIZED, but it still showed improvement with the
> > UNOPTIMIZED version as well. Can we at least apply 2 and 3 from the
> > above (which happen to be the first part of the patch set. 1 comes in
> > at the end).
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> >
> > I would also just call it CONFIG_STATIC_CALL. If we every agree on the
> > optimized version, then we can call it CONFIG_STATIC_CALL_OPTIMIZED.
> > Have an option called UNOPTIMIZED just seems wrong.
(Poking my head up for a bit, soon to disappear again until next week)
Ard had already objected to "unoptimized", which was why for v2 I
renamed them to CONFIG_STATIC_CALL_OUTLINE and CONFIG_STATIC_CALL_INLINE.
I could rename it to CONFIG_STATIC_CALL and CONFIG_STATIC_CALL_INLINE if
you prefer. I don't have much of an opinion either way.
I'll post a v3 next week or so, with the controversial bits more fully
separated from the non-controversial bits. So at least the out-of-line
implementation can get merged.
> My objection to all the bike shed colors so far is that we *always*
> have static_call() — it’s just not always static.
Hm? Do you mean you don't like that we have a generic function pointer
implementation? or what?
> Anyway, I have a new objection to Josh’s create_gap proposal: what on
> Earth will kernel CET do to it? Maybe my longjmp-like hack is
> actually better.
Does CET even care about iret? I assumed it didn't. If it does, your
proposal would have the same problem, no?
--
Josh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-05 15:04 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
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 [this message]
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=20181205150422.mlrjcm5rm26ozg5j@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@amacapital.net \
--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).