From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: objtool clac/stac handling change..
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:29:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXLcyuVT2JCrb0d-5Oq8aRLrERUdhRfGLxVZyYYo3BoBQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjc-ktbOr7ZHMY8gfAmHxUK+aMdDsQjeh+BvmQwnQfN_g@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 11:22 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Josh / PeterZ,
> it turns out that clang seems to now have fixed the last known
> nagging details with "asm goto" with outputs, so I'm looking at
> actually trying to merge the support for that in the kernel.
>
> The main annoyance isn't actually using "asm goto" at all, the main
> annoyance is just that it will all have to be conditional on whether
> the compiler supports it or not. We have the config option for that
> already, but it will just end up with two copies of the code depending
> on that option.
>
> It's not a huge deal: the recent cleanups wrt the x86 uaccess code
> have made the code _much_ more straightforward and legible, and I'm
> not so worried about it all.
>
> Except that when I looked at this, I realized that I really had picked
> the wrong model for how exceptions are handled wrt stac/clac. In
> particular user access exceptions return with stac set, so we end up
> having a code pattern where the error case will also have to do the
> user_access_end() to finish the STAC region.
>
> Adding a user_access_end() to the user exception fault handler is trivial.
>
> But the thing I'm asking you for is how nasty it would be to change
> objtool to have those rules?
>
> IOW, right now we have
>
> if (!user_acces_begin(...))
> goto efault;
> unsafe_get/put_user(ptr, val, label);
> user_access_end();
> return 0;
>
> label:
> user_access_end();
> efaulr:
> return -EFAULT;
>
> and I'd like to make the "label" case just go to "efault", with
> objtool knowing that the exception handling already did the
> user_access_end().
Do we really want the exception handling to do the CLAC? Having
unsafe_get_user() do CLAC seems surprising to me, and it will break
use cases like:
if (!user_access_begin(...)
goto out;
ret = unsafe_get_user(...);
user_access_end();
check ret;
I have no problem with a special ex_handler_uaccess_clac, but I don't
think it should be the default.
--Andy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-01 18:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-01 18:22 objtool clac/stac handling change Linus Torvalds
2020-07-01 18:29 ` Andy Lutomirski [this message]
2020-07-01 19:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-01 20:36 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-07-01 20:51 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2020-07-01 21:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-02 0:00 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2020-07-02 8:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-07-01 20:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-02 0:47 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-07-02 2:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-02 2:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-02 3:08 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-07-01 18:41 ` Al Viro
2020-07-01 19:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-01 19:59 ` Al Viro
2020-07-01 20:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-02 13:34 ` Michael Ellerman
2020-07-02 14:01 ` Al Viro
2020-07-02 14:04 ` Al Viro
2020-07-02 15:13 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-07-02 20:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-03 3:59 ` Michael Ellerman
2020-07-03 3:17 ` Michael Ellerman
2020-07-03 5:27 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-07-02 19:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-02 20:17 ` Al Viro
2020-07-02 20:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-02 20:59 ` Al Viro
2020-07-02 21:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-03 1:33 ` Al Viro
2020-07-03 3:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-03 21:02 ` Al Viro
2020-07-03 21:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-03 21:41 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-07-03 22:25 ` Al Viro
2020-07-03 21:59 ` Al Viro
2020-07-03 22:04 ` Al Viro
2020-07-03 22:12 ` Al Viro
2020-07-04 0:49 ` Al Viro
2020-07-04 1:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-04 2:30 ` Al Viro
2020-07-04 3:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-04 2:11 ` Al Viro
2020-07-07 12:35 ` David Laight
2020-07-10 22:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-13 9:32 ` David Laight
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=CALCETrXLcyuVT2JCrb0d-5Oq8aRLrERUdhRfGLxVZyYYo3BoBQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--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).