mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/speculation: Simplify and make CALL_NOSPEC consistent
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:36:40 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bf053035-6ead-4f3f-b53e-d265824199c3@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250228003117.q6f2f5a7ndt2o226@desk>

On 28/02/2025 12:31 am, Pawan Gupta wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 03:13:48PM -0800, Pawan Gupta wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 06:57:37PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2025 6:41 pm, Pawan Gupta wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 12:49:48AM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>>> On 26/02/2025 9:03 pm, Pawan Gupta wrote:
>>>>>> @@ -420,20 +420,28 @@ static inline void call_depth_return_thunk(void) {}
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>> + * Equivalent to -mindirect-branch-cs-prefix; emit the 5 byte jmp/call
>>>>>> + * to the retpoline thunk with a CS prefix when the register requires
>>>>>> + * a REX prefix byte to encode. Also see apply_retpolines().
>>>>>> + */
>>>>> Technically, both comments aren't quite accurate.  __CS_PREFIX() emits a
>>>>> conditional CS prefix in a manner compatible with
>>>>> -mindirect-branch-cs-prefix, not the full 5/6 byte jmp/call.
>>>> You are right, I will update the comment, and also the ASSEMBLY version
>>>> where this comment came from:
>>>>
>>>>   /*
>>>>    * Equivalent to -mindirect-branch-cs-prefix; emit the 5 byte jmp/call
>>>>    * to the retpoline thunk with a CS prefix when the register requires
>>>>    * a REX prefix byte to encode. Also see apply_retpolines().
>>>>    */
>>>>   .macro __CS_PREFIX reg:req
>>>>           .irp rs,r8,r9,r10,r11,r12,r13,r14,r15
>>>>           .ifc \reg,\rs
>>>>           .byte 0x2e
>>>>           .endif
>>>>           .endr
>>>>   .endm
>>>>
>>>>>> +#define __CS_PREFIX(reg)				\
>>>>>> +	.irp rs,r8,r9,r10,r11,r12,r13,r14,r15;		\
>>>>>> +	.ifc \\rs, \reg;				\
>>>>> Why are these escaped differently?  Given they're all \r of some form or
>>>>> another, I guess something is going wonky with __stringify(), but its
>>>>> still weird for them to be different.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have a fully pre-processed source to hand to see how CALL_NOSPEC
>>>>> ends up?
>>>> Below is the pre-processed source for test_cc() generated with "make arch/x86/kvm/emulate.i".
>>>>
>>>> - This is with double backslash in ".ifc \\rs, \reg":
>>>>
>>>> 	asm("push %[flags]; popf; " ".irp rs,r8,r9,r10,r11,r12,r13,r14,r15; .ifc \\rs, \%V[thunk_target]; .byte 0x2e; .endif; .endr;" "call __x86_indirect_thunk_%V[thunk_target]\n"
>>>>                                                                                   ^
>>>> 	This ends up emitting the CS prefix byte correctly:
>>>>
>>>> 	2e e8 51 c9 32 01       cs call ffffffff824289e0
>>>>
>>>> - This is with single backslash in ".ifc \\rs, \reg":
>>>>
>>>> 	asm("push %[flags]; popf; " ".irp rs,r8,r9,r10,r11,r12,r13,r14,r15; .ifc \rs, \%V[thunk_target]; .byte 0x2e; .endif; .endr;" "c      all __x86_indirect_thunk_%V[thunk_target]\n"
>>>>                                                                                   ^
>>>> 	This version does not emit the CS prefix byte:
>>>>
>>>> 	e8 52 c9 32 01          call   ffffffff824289e0
>>>>
>>>> I tried looking in gcc inline assembly documentation but could not find
>>>> anything that would explain this. :(
>>> It's because it's about plain C strings.
>>>
>>> \r (from \rs) is Carriage Return (ASCII 0x0d).
>> Ah, right.
>>
>>> After AS's macro expansion, \reg becomes \% which is not a valid escape
>>> character, so the \ gets left intact.
>>>
>>> \reg should become \\reg or you'll probably get a compiler complaining
>>> eventually.
>> Using \\ for reg like this:
>>
>>  .ifc \\rs, \\reg
>>
>> is not emitting the CS prefix. I am trying to wrap my head around the
>> magic.
> Getting rid of one layer of macro makes it less magical:
>
> #define __CS_PREFIX(reg)				\
>             ".irp rs,r8,r9,r10,r11,r12,r13,r14,r15\n"	\
>             ".ifc \\rs," reg "\n"                       \
>             ".byte 0x2e\n"                              \
>             ".endif\n"                                  \
>             ".endr\n"
>
> #define CALL_NOSPEC    __CS_PREFIX("%V[thunk_target]")  \
>                         "call __x86_indirect_thunk_%V[thunk_target]\n"
> #else
> #define CALL_NOSPEC    "call *%[thunk_target]\n"
> #endif
>
> Preprocessor output is as expected, and this emits the CS prefix correctly:
>
> 	".ifc \\rs, %V[thunk_target]"
>
> Full version:
>
> 	asm("push %[flags]; popf; " ".irp rs,r8,r9,r10,r11,r12,r13,r14,r15\n" ".ifc \\rs," "%V[thunk_target]" "\n" ".byte 0x2e\n" ".endif\n" ".endr\n" "call __x86_indirect_thunk_%V[thunk_target]\n"
> 	: "=a"(rc), "+r" (current_stack_pointer) : [thunk_target]"r"(fop), [flags]"r"(flags));

Yeah, I think that's a lot better.

I still cant spot precisely what's wrong with the prior \\reg.

~Andrew

  reply	other threads:[~2025-02-28  0:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-02-26 21:03 Pawan Gupta
2025-02-27  0:49 ` Andrew Cooper
2025-02-27 18:41   ` Pawan Gupta
2025-02-27 18:57     ` Andrew Cooper
2025-02-27 23:13       ` Pawan Gupta
2025-02-28  0:31         ` Pawan Gupta
2025-02-28  0:36           ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2025-02-28  1:06             ` Pawan Gupta

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=bf053035-6ead-4f3f-b53e-d265824199c3@citrix.com \
    --to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
    --cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com \
    --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®