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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/10] objtool: Even more complex static block checks
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:13:15 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180117141315.nk4cszdo4tw7zaxk@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180117081309.GJ2228@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 09:13:09AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 09:12:32PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 08:49:17PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Subject: objtool: Even more complex static block checks
> > > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > Date: Tue Jan 16 20:17:01 CET 2018
> > >
> > > I've observed GCC transform:
> > >
> > > f()
> > > {
> > > if (!static_branch_unlikely())
> > > return;
> > >
> > > static_assert();
> > > A;
> > > }
> > >
> > > g()
> > > {
> > > f();
> > > }
> > >
> > > Into:
> > >
> > > f()
> > > {
> > > static_assert();
> > > A;
> > > }
> > >
> > > g()
> > > {
> > > if (static_branch_unlikely())
> > > f();
> > > }
> > >
> > > Which results in the assertion landing at f+0. The transformation is
> > > valid and useful; it avoids a pointless CALL+RET sequence, so we'll
> > > have to teach objtool how to deal with this.
> > >
> > > Do this by marking all CALL destinations with static_call when called
> > > from a static_block and non_static_call when called outside a
> > > static_block. This allows us to identify functions called exclusively
> > > from a static_block and start them with a static_block.
> >
> > Ew... where'd you place the assertion to trigger this?
>
> Its the patch I pastebin'ed you earlier, also see below.
Ah, I remembered you mentioning the problem, just forgot you showed me
the patch.
> > It's late and my brain has already clocked out, so I'll need to revisit
> > this tomorrow. But now I'm wondering if my basic block idea would be a
> > better way to solve this.
>
> I would think basic-blocks are inside functions, and this patch goes
> across functions, something you'd still need even if you had basic
> blocks.
Right, but I was thinking the patch would be a lot simpler with basic
blocks.
> Also, basic blocks are non-trivial because they can overlap.
Hm, I thought a basic block only has one entry point and one exit point.
How could they overlap?
--
Josh
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-17 14:13 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
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 [this message]
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=20180117141315.nk4cszdo4tw7zaxk@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=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®