From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: alexandre.chartre@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
jthierry@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/7] x86/speculation: Change __FILL_RETURN_BUFFER to work with objtool
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 11:51:55 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200419165155.4twgzmf6eusk7rv5@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200416151025.004441230@infradead.org>
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 05:07:57PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> From: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
>
> Change __FILL_RETURN_BUFFER so that the stack state is deterministically
> defined for each iteration and that objtool can have an accurate view
> of the stack.
>
> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200414103618.12657-8-alexandre.chartre@oracle.com
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
> #define _ASM_X86_NOSPEC_BRANCH_H_
>
> #include <linux/static_key.h>
> +#include <linux/frame.h>
>
> #include <asm/alternative.h>
> #include <asm/alternative-asm.h>
> @@ -46,12 +47,14 @@
> #define __FILL_RETURN_BUFFER(reg, nr, sp) \
> mov $(nr/2), reg; \
> 771: \
> + ANNOTATE_INTRA_FUNCTION_CALL \
> call 772f; \
> 773: /* speculation trap */ \
> pause; \
> lfence; \
> jmp 773b; \
> 772: \
> + ANNOTATE_INTRA_FUNCTION_CALL \
> call 774f; \
> 775: /* speculation trap */ \
> pause; \
> @@ -59,8 +62,8 @@
> jmp 775b; \
> 774: \
> dec reg; \
> - jnz 771b; \
> - add $(BITS_PER_LONG/8) * nr, sp;
> + add $(BITS_PER_LONG/8) * 2, sp; \
> + jnz 771b;
>
> #ifdef __ASSEMBLY__
Are we still planning to warn about stack changes inside an alternative?
If so then this would still fail...
In this case I think it should be safe, but I'm not sure how we can
ensure that will always be the case for other alternatives.
And do the ORC entries actually work for this? As far as I can tell,
they would be associated with the .altinstructions section and not
.text, so it wouldn't work.
Also, does objtool not warn about the unreachable speculation traps?
I'm guessing it doesn't notice unreachable alternatives... which I guess
is probably fine.
--
Josh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-19 16:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-16 15:07 [RFC][PATCH 0/7] objtool vs retpoline Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-16 15:07 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/7] objtool: is_fentry_call() crashes if call has no destination Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-16 15:07 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/7] objtool: UNWIND_HINT_RET_OFFSET should not check registers Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-16 15:07 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/7] objtool: Allow branches within the same alternative Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-19 16:32 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2020-04-19 19:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-16 15:07 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/7] objtool: Add support for intra-function calls Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-19 16:41 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2020-04-23 11:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-16 15:07 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/7] x86/speculation: Change __FILL_RETURN_BUFFER to work with objtool Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-19 16:51 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
2020-04-19 16:55 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2020-04-19 18:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-16 15:07 ` [RFC][PATCH 6/7] x86/retpoline: Out-of-line retpoline Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-16 15:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-16 15:07 ` [RFC][PATCH 7/7] x86/nospec: Remove ANNOTATE_NOSPEC_ALTERNATIVE Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-16 15:32 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/7] objtool vs retpoline Peter Zijlstra
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=20200419165155.4twgzmf6eusk7rv5@treble \
--to=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=alexandre.chartre@oracle.com \
--cc=jthierry@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--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®