From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172])
	by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3894A3081BD
	for <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Mon,  1 Dec 2025 10:30:21 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172
ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116;
	t=1764585026; cv=none; b=NPeRLHo99uNzc1aEpKaDTCVoH937W8ouPAY8cxeeIybBfNfwCUnAy2i5ujl2ZCkwwjmRtWmgtDib9vr3WcL39f05r4JL176R2WbbubeVlMvHphUORrlq50H5ZN04xVQBdaqG0NDKB31DFtDV2AnJunIN/9TqjERjISTAq/Mftqc=
ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org;
	s=arc-20240116; t=1764585026; c=relaxed/simple;
	bh=E7ydo/6BGXF7SkUgHjB30Sd6dABPSAzRR8cJTRVe7DU=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:
	 Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=q86Ba4peAE4upCJ6ALHUN1lFGTBrl4cDWstCipIKWo6mehY2FAzHvyOq7eDSbijTaqyTbwMVEx9nMDBeY9dGyZkjvxZWvGQz887zVlnBJtCgllCmvLM+79l0rXMb3OhgCZa4fhRL8aBMOazc6Papuvz+pL+Tu4PwjTwc3SI5a4E=
ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com
Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14])
	by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E08CA1516;
	Mon,  1 Dec 2025 02:30:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from J2N7QTR9R3 (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.121.207.14])
	by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D0B9E3F73B;
	Mon,  1 Dec 2025 02:30:18 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 10:30:16 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: david laight <david.laight@runbox.com>
Cc: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>, linux@armlinux.org.uk,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, chris@zankel.net,
	jcmvbkbc@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, macro@orcam.me.uk,
	charlie@rivosinc.com, deller@gmx.de, ldv@strace.io,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: Avoid memcpy() for syscall_get_arguments()
Message-ID: <aS1uOGm7cQf1euIw@J2N7QTR9R3>
References: <20251127123630.4149828-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
 <20251127123630.4149828-3-ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
 <aS1qYhHhZK3CD_bU@J2N7QTR9R3>
 <20251201102633.17a99afc@pumpkin>
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:linux-kernel+subscribe@vger.kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:linux-kernel+unsubscribe@vger.kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20251201102633.17a99afc@pumpkin>

On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 10:26:33AM +0000, david laight wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2025 10:13:54 +0000
> Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 08:36:30PM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> > > Before:
> > > <syscall_get_arguments.constprop.0>:
> > >        aa0103e2        mov     x2, x1
> > >        91002003        add     x3, x0, #0x8
> > >        f9408804        ldr     x4, [x0, #272]
> > >        f8008444        str     x4, [x2], #8
> > >        a9409404        ldp     x4, x5, [x0, #8]
> > >        a9009424        stp     x4, x5, [x1, #8]
> > >        a9418400        ldp     x0, x1, [x0, #24]
> > >        a9010440        stp     x0, x1, [x2, #16]
> > >        f9401060        ldr     x0, [x3, #32]
> > >        f9001040        str     x0, [x2, #32]
> > >        d65f03c0        ret
> > >        d503201f        nop
> > > 
> > > After:
> > >        a9408e82        ldp     x2, x3, [x20, #8]
> > >        2a1603e0        mov     w0, w22
> > >        f9400e84        ldr     x4, [x20, #24]
> > >        f9408a81        ldr     x1, [x20, #272]
> > >        9401c4ba        bl      ffff800080215ca8 <__audit_syscall_entry>  
> > 
> > It's probably worth noting that __audit_syscall_entry() only takes 4
> > syscall arguments, and hence the compiler has elided the copy of
> > regs->regs[4] and regs->regs[5], which it apparently couldn't manage
> > before.
> 
> Hasn't it actually inlined it and completely optimised away the regs[] array?
> It looks (from the asm) as though syscall_get_arguments() is followed by:
> 	fn(regs[0], regs[1], regs[2], regs[3])

Yes; I was assuming that people could infer that.

I was poining out that the elision of copies/loads of regs->regs[4] and
regs->regs[5] in particular was not a bug.

Mark.