mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	mhiramat@kernel.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
	jpoimboe@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] x86/alternative: Rewrite optimize_nops() some
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2023 21:29:22 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y+QGIiOupDKxlKKR@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f0b54521-26cf-ed38-d805-3a8eef3b3103@citrix.com>

On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 07:52:04PM +0000, Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com wrote:
> On 08/02/2023 5:10 pm, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > This rewrite address two issues:
> >
> >  - it no longer hard requires single byte nop runs, it now accepts
> >    any NOP and NOPL encoded instruction (but not the more complicated
> >    32bit NOPs).
> >
> >  - it writes a single 'instruction' replacement.
> >
> > Specifically, ORC unwinder relies on the tail NOP of an alternative to
> > be a single instruction, in particular it relies on the inner bytes
> > not being executed.
> >
> > Once we reach the max supported NOP length (currently 8, could easily
> > be extended to 11 on x86_64), switches to JMP.d8 and INT3 padding to
> > achieve the same result.
> >
> > The ORC unwinder uses this guarantee in the analysis of
> > alternative/overlapping CFI state,
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> 
> How lucky are you feeling for your game of performance roulette?

Yeah, not very lucky.. I've been talking about this with Boris for a bit
already.

> Unconditional jmps cost branch prediction these days, and won't be
> successfully predicted until taken.

IKR, insane, but that's what it is.

> There is a point after which a jmp is more efficient that brute forcing
> through a line of nops, and where this point is is very uarch specific,
> but it's not a single nop...

Yeah, I know, even very big nops. $I prefetch is good at straight lines
etc..

> Whether you care or not is a different matter, but at least be aware
> doing a jmp like this instead of e.g. 2 or 3 nops, is contrary to the
> prior advice given by the architects.

So, it is either this, or make the CFI conflict analysis done by objtool
a lot more 'interesting'. I figured I'd try this first.

As is this is actually a correctness issue, not a performance issue.
Goes hand in hand with the patches:

  https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230208172245.711471461@infradead.org
  https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230208172245.783099843@infradead.org

Specifically, for short alternatives objtool adds a single nop of
size difference size at the end. The advantage is that you only get one
CFI entry for that thing and so don't have potential conflict for any of
the inner bytes.

The alternative is making it multiple NOPs and ensuring objtool and the
kernel both agree on the length of them.

As is, there were only a hand full of NOPs that turned into this jmp.d8
thing on the defconfig+kvm_guest.config I build to test this -- it is by
no means a common thing. And about half of them would be gone by
extending the max nop length to at least 10 or so.

In fact, I did that patch once, lemme see if I still have it...

  reply	other threads:[~2023-02-08 20:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-02-08 17:10 [PATCH v3 0/4] x86: Fully relocatable alternatives and some NOPs Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-08 17:10 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] x86/alternative: Make debug-alternative selective Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-14 11:48   ` Borislav Petkov
2023-05-13 13:03   ` [tip: x86/alternatives] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-08 17:10 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] x86/alternative: Support relocations in alternatives Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-17 20:28   ` Borislav Petkov
2023-02-17 22:21   ` Borislav Petkov
2023-05-13 13:03   ` [tip: x86/alternatives] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-08 17:10 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] x86/alternative: Rewrite optimize_nops() some Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-08 19:52   ` Andrew.Cooper3
2023-02-08 20:29     ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2023-02-08 20:36       ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-08 20:44         ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-08 20:45           ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-08 21:01           ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-08 21:08           ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-08 21:21             ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-09  1:11               ` Andrew.Cooper3
2023-02-09 22:27                 ` David Laight
2023-02-09  1:33       ` Andrew.Cooper3
2023-02-08 23:04     ` David Laight
2023-05-13 13:03   ` [tip: x86/alternatives] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-27 10:49 ` [PATCH] x86/lib/memmove: Decouple ERMS from FSRM Borislav Petkov
2023-04-27  9:22   ` [PATCH TEST] " Yahu Gao

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=Y+QGIiOupDKxlKKR@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com \
    --cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
    --cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mhiramat@kernel.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®