From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/10] objtool: Implement jump_assert for _static_cpu_has()
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:02:56 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180116230256.7uhpc3bzfj7vivmr@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180116143241.236771093@infradead.org>
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 03:28:31PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Unlike the jump_label bits, static_cpu_has is implemented with
> alternatives. We use the new type field to distinguish them from any
> other alternatives
>
> Like jump_labels, make static_cpu_has set static_jump_dest on the
> instructions after the static branch such that we can assert on it.
>
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
> tools/objtool/check.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> tools/objtool/special.c | 11 +++++++++++
> tools/objtool/special.h | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 33 insertions(+)
>
> --- a/tools/objtool/check.c
> +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c
> @@ -636,6 +636,12 @@ static int handle_group_alt(struct objto
> fake_jump->ignore = true;
>
> if (!special_alt->new_len) {
> + /*
> + * The NOP case for _static_cpu_has()
> + */
> + if (special_alt->static_feat)
s/static_feat/static_cpu_has/ ?
> + fake_jump->jump_dest->static_jump_dest = true;
> +
> *new_insn = fake_jump;
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -664,6 +670,21 @@ static int handle_group_alt(struct objto
> insn->sec, insn->offset);
> return -1;
> }
> +
> + if (special_alt->static_feat) {
> + if (insn->type != INSN_JUMP_UNCONDITIONAL) {
> + WARN_FUNC("not an unconditional jump in _static_cpu_has()",
> + insn->sec, insn->offset);
> + }
So I think this is trying to assert the fact that you're only expecting
a single instruction which is an unconditional jump. We already weeded
out non-jumps earlier in the loop, so would it make sense to do this
check before the INSN_JUMP_CONDITIONAL/INSN_JUMP_UNCONDITIONAL check a
little higher up?
> + if (insn->jump_dest == fake_jump) {
> + WARN_FUNC("jump inside alternative for _static_cpu_has()",
> + insn->sec, insn->offset);
> + }
The error message doesn't seem to match the condition, so I'm not sure
which one you're trying to check, or why.
IIRC, 'insn->jump_dest == fake_jump' means we reached the end of the
alternative code block without hitting a jump.
But based on the loop exit condition, I don't think it's ever possible
for insn->jump_dest to ever point to the fake_jump at the end.
> + /*
> + * The JMP+disp case for _static_cpu_has()
> + */
> + insn->jump_dest->static_jump_dest = true;
> + }
> }
>
> if (!last_new_insn) {
> --- a/tools/objtool/special.c
> +++ b/tools/objtool/special.c
> @@ -40,6 +40,11 @@
> #define ALT_FEATURE_OFFSET 8
> #define ALT_ORIG_LEN_OFFSET 10
> #define ALT_NEW_LEN_OFFSET 11
> +#define ALT_PADDING_OFFSET 12
> +#define ALT_TYPE_OFFSET 13
We don't need the ALT_PADDING_OFFSET define (notice we have gaps
already, there are only defines for the ones we use).
> +
> +#define ALT_TYPE_DEFAULT 0
> +#define ALT_TYPE_STATIC_CPU_HAS 1
>
> #define X86_FEATURE_POPCNT (4*32+23)
>
> @@ -99,10 +104,13 @@ static int get_alt_entry(struct elf *elf
>
> if (entry->feature) {
Since this block now uses more than entry->feature, and is now just a
general alternatives thing, can you change it to
if (entry->feature == ALT_FEATURE_OFFSET)
so it's more clear and slightly more future proof?
> unsigned short feature;
> + unsigned char type;
>
> feature = *(unsigned short *)(sec->data->d_buf + offset +
> entry->feature);
>
> + type = *(unsigned char *)(sec->data->d_buf + offset + ALT_TYPE_OFFSET);
> +
> /*
> * It has been requested that we don't validate the !POPCNT
> * feature path which is a "very very small percentage of
> @@ -110,6 +118,9 @@ static int get_alt_entry(struct elf *elf
> */
> if (feature == X86_FEATURE_POPCNT)
> alt->skip_orig = true;
> +
> + if (type == ALT_TYPE_STATIC_CPU_HAS)
> + alt->static_feat = true;
> }
>
> orig_rela = find_rela_by_dest(sec, offset + entry->orig);
> --- a/tools/objtool/special.h
> +++ b/tools/objtool/special.h
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ struct special_alt {
> bool group;
> bool skip_orig;
> bool jump_or_nop;
> + bool static_feat;
>
> struct section *orig_sec;
> unsigned long orig_off;
>
>
--
Josh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-16 23:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-16 14:28 [PATCH v2 00/10] objtool validation of static branches and retpoline Peter Zijlstra
2018-01-16 14:28 ` [PATCH v2 01/10] x86: Reindent _static_cpu_has Peter Zijlstra
2018-01-16 15:48 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-01-16 14:28 ` [PATCH v2 02/10] x86: Update _static_cpu_has to use all named variables Peter Zijlstra
2018-01-18 11:21 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-01-18 15:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-01-18 15:24 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-01-16 14:28 ` [PATCH v2 03/10] x86: Add a type field to alt_instr Peter Zijlstra
2018-01-16 22:49 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-01-16 22:53 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-01-16 23:06 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-01-18 11:32 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-01-16 14:28 ` [PATCH v2 04/10] objtool: Implement base jump_assert support Peter Zijlstra
2018-01-16 14:28 ` [PATCH v2 05/10] x86: Annotate static_cpu_has alternative Peter Zijlstra
2018-01-18 13:15 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-01-16 14:28 ` [PATCH v2 06/10] objtool: Implement jump_assert for _static_cpu_has() Peter Zijlstra
2018-01-16 23:02 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
2018-01-17 9:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-01-17 14:27 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-01-17 14:30 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-01-17 16:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-01-16 14:28 ` [PATCH v2 07/10] x86/jump_label: Implement arch_static_assert() Peter Zijlstra
2018-01-18 13:33 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-01-18 15:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-01-16 14:28 ` [PATCH v2 08/10] objtool: Add retpoline validation Peter Zijlstra
2018-01-16 14:28 ` [PATCH v2 09/10] x86: Annotate dynamic jump in head_64.S Peter Zijlstra
2018-01-16 14:28 ` [PATCH v2 10/10] objtool: More complex static jump implementation Peter Zijlstra
2018-01-16 15:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-01-17 3:05 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-01-17 8:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-01-16 19:49 ` [PATCH v2 11/10] objtool: Even more complex static block checks Peter Zijlstra
2018-01-17 3:12 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-01-17 8:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-01-17 14:13 ` 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=20180116230256.7uhpc3bzfj7vivmr@treble \
--to=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com \
--cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=asit.k.mallick@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jun.nakajima@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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®