From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: implement support for static call trampolines
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 17:10:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXHYXzU=pW6tUJB61QW5VBL7WKBhT7BkNJ970FQdHz1VVw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YXbHJCtkBdMP/bF6@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 at 17:05, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 04:55:17PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 at 16:47, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps a little something like so.. Shaves 2 instructions off each
> > > trampoline.
> > >
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/static_call.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/static_call.h
> > > @@ -11,9 +11,7 @@
> > > " hint 34 /* BTI C */ \n" \
> > > insn " \n" \
> > > " ldr x16, 0b \n" \
> > > - " cbz x16, 1f \n" \
> > > " br x16 \n" \
> > > - "1: ret \n" \
> > > " .popsection \n")
> > >
> > > #define ARCH_DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_TRAMP(name, func) \
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/patching.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/patching.c
> > > @@ -90,6 +90,11 @@ int __kprobes aarch64_insn_write(void *a
> > > return __aarch64_insn_write(addr, &i, AARCH64_INSN_SIZE);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +asm("__static_call_ret: \n"
> > > + " ret \n")
> > > +
> >
> > This breaks BTI as it lacks the landing pad, and it will be called indirectly.
>
> Argh!
>
> > > +extern void __static_call_ret(void);
> > > +
> >
> > Better to have an ordinary C function here (with consistent linkage),
> > but we need to take the address in a way that works with Clang CFI.
>
> There is that.
>
> > As the two additional instructions are on an ice cold path anyway, I'm
> > not sure this is an obvious improvement tbh.
>
> For me it's both simpler -- by virtue of being more consistent, and
> smaller. So double win :-)
>
> That is; you're already relying on the literal being unconditionally
> updated for the normal B foo -> NOP path, and having the RET -> NOP path
> be handled differently is just confusing.
>
> At least, that's how I'm seeing it today...
Fair enough. I don't have a strong opinion either way, so I'll let
some other arm64 folks chime in as well.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-25 15:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-25 12:20 [PATCH 0/4] arm64: Support dynamic preemption v2 Frederic Weisbecker
2021-10-25 12:20 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/preempt: Prepare for supporting !CONFIG_GENERIC_ENTRY dynamic preemption Frederic Weisbecker
2021-10-25 12:21 ` [PATCH 2/4] arm64: implement support for static call trampolines Frederic Weisbecker
2021-10-25 13:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-25 14:08 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-10-25 14:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-25 14:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-25 14:55 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-10-25 15:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-25 15:10 ` Ard Biesheuvel [this message]
2021-10-26 10:36 ` Mark Rutland
2021-10-26 10:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-26 11:06 ` David Laight
2021-10-27 12:47 ` Mark Rutland
2021-10-25 15:03 ` David Laight
2021-10-25 14:25 ` David Laight
2021-10-25 14:31 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-10-25 14:38 ` David Laight
2021-10-25 12:21 ` [PATCH 3/4] arm64: Implement IRQ exit preemption static call for dynamic preemption Frederic Weisbecker
2021-10-25 12:21 ` [PATCH 4/4] arm64: Implement HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Frederic Weisbecker
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-09-20 23:32 [PATCH 0/4] arm64: Support dynamic preemption Frederic Weisbecker
2021-09-20 23:32 ` [PATCH 2/4] arm64: implement support for static call trampolines Frederic Weisbecker
2021-09-21 7:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-09-21 14:44 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-09-21 15:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-09-21 15:33 ` Mark Rutland
2021-09-21 15:55 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-09-21 16:28 ` Mark Rutland
2021-09-25 17:46 ` David Laight
2021-09-27 8:58 ` Mark Rutland
2021-09-21 16:10 ` Ard Biesheuvel
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='CAMj1kXHYXzU=pW6tUJB61QW5VBL7WKBhT7BkNJ970FQdHz1VVw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=David.Laight@aculab.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qperret@google.com \
--cc=will@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).