From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@verizon.com>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"live-patching@vger.kernel.org" <live-patching@vger.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] x86/unwind: add ORC unwinder
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 14:13:44 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170808191344.kw5nlicmq4g6fpii@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFz+4WkCA1wQBB6dtttWWEgB+FiVDAp1mY1b=UPnjd0ZKQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 12:03:51PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Take for example the lock_is_held_type() function. In vmlinux, it has
> > the following instruction:
> >
> > callq *0xffffffff85a94880 (pv_irq_ops.save_fl)
> >
> > At runtime, that instruction is patched and replaced with a fast inline
> > version of arch_local_save_flags() which eliminates the call:
> >
> > pushfq
> > pop %rax
> >
> > The problem is when an interrupt hits after the push:
> >
> > pushfq
> > --- irq ---
> > pop %rax
>
> That should actually be something easily fixable, for an odd reason:
> the instruction boundaries are different.
>
> > I'm not sure what the solution should be. It will probably need to be
> > one of the following:
> >
> > a) either don't allow runtime "alternative" patches to mess with the
> > stack pointer (objtool could enforce this); or
> >
> > b) come up with some way to register such patches with the ORC
> > unwinder at runtime.
>
> c) just add ORC data for the alternative statically and _unconditionally_.
>
> No runtime registration. Just an unconditional entry for the
> particular IP that comes after the "pushfq". It cannot match the
> "callq" instruction, since it would be in the middle of that
> instruction.
>
> Basically, just do a "union" of the ORC data for all the alternatives.
>
> Now, objtool should still verify that the instruction pointers for
> alternatives are unique - or that they share the same ORC unwinder
> information if they are not.
>
> But in cases like this, when the instruction boundaires are different,
> things should "just work", with no need for any special cases.
>
> Hmm?
Yeah, that might work. Objtool already knows about alternatives, so it
might not be too hard. I'll try it.
And it can spit out a warning if we get two different ORC states for the
same address after doing the "union". Then I guess we'd have to
rearrange things or sprinkle some nops to work around it.
--
Josh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-08 19:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-24 23:36 [PATCH v4 0/2] " Josh Poimboeuf
2017-07-24 23:36 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] x86/unwind: add " Josh Poimboeuf
2017-07-26 12:10 ` [tip:x86/asm] x86/unwind: Add the " tip-bot for Josh Poimboeuf
2017-07-28 16:48 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] x86/unwind: add " Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)
2017-07-28 17:52 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-07-28 18:29 ` Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)
2017-07-28 18:57 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-07-28 19:59 ` Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)
2017-07-29 3:54 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-08-08 18:58 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-08-08 19:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-08 19:13 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
2017-08-08 20:09 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-08-08 22:00 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-08-09 8:49 ` Juergen Gross
2017-08-09 9:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-09 9:24 ` Juergen Gross
2017-08-09 9:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-09 9:55 ` Juergen Gross
2017-08-09 20:15 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-08-10 7:05 ` Juergen Gross
2017-08-10 14:09 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-08-10 14:24 ` Juergen Gross
2017-08-10 14:39 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-08-10 14:59 ` Juergen Gross
2017-08-10 15:49 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-08-10 14:42 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-08-09 16:11 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-08-09 17:52 ` Juergen Gross
2017-09-27 21:08 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-09-28 6:03 ` Juergen Gross
2017-09-28 13:55 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-09-28 13:58 ` Juergen Gross
2017-07-24 23:36 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] x86/kconfig: make it easier to switch to the new " Josh Poimboeuf
2017-07-25 9:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-07-25 13:54 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-07-26 12:11 ` [tip:x86/asm] x86/kconfig: Consolidate unwinders into multiple choice selection tip-bot for Josh Poimboeuf
2017-07-26 12:10 ` [tip:x86/asm] x86/kconfig: Make it easier to switch to the new ORC unwinder tip-bot for Josh Poimboeuf
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=20170808191344.kw5nlicmq4g6fpii@treble \
--to=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=alexander.levin@verizon.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jslaby@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®