Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:45:54 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc:     tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, pjt@google.com, jikos@kernel.org,
        gregkh@linux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@intel.com,
        mingo@kernel.org, riel@redhat.com, luto@amacapital.net,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, ak@linux.intel.com,
        keescook@google.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/pti] x86/retpoline: Fill return stack buffer on vmexit
Message-ID: <20180125124554.vdx7rrnfrxrzl2ng@pd.tnic>
References: <1515755487-8524-1-git-send-email-dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
 <tip-117cc7a908c83697b0b737d15ae1eb5943afe35b@git.kernel.org>
 <20180125120743.ey32gvl5mjam4r2s@pd.tnic>
 <1516882849.30244.94.camel@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1516882849.30244.94.camel@infradead.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 12:20:49PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> I haven't had lunch yet, so I don't feel queasy

Oh, I caught you on time then :-)

> and I'm vaguely interested... *why* does it break kABI?

Kernels < 4.1 don't have the insn padding I did back then so when one
tries to backport this, struct alt_instr size changes. Fun.

> > +/* Like alternative_io, but for replacing a direct call with another one. */
> > +#define alternative_void_call(oldfunc, newfunc, feature, input...)		\
> > +	asm volatile (ALTERNATIVE("call %P[old]", "call %P[new]", feature)	\
> > +		: : [old] "i" (oldfunc), [new] "i" (newfunc), ## input)
> 
> But you aren't doing the call at all in the other case, and
> alternatives *always* handled the case where the first 'alternative'
> instruction was a branch, didn't it?
> 
> So couldn't it just be alternative(nop, call __fill_rsb_func)?
> 
> But I still don't understand why it matters.

You need for both to be CALL instructions there so that gcc can manage
the callee clobbers properly - i.e., recognize that there's a function
call there.

Otherwise you need to do uglies like the hunk in arch/x86/Kconfig in

d61931d89be5 ("x86: Add optimized popcnt variants")

which I killed later after all as it broke profiling and other tools.

And besides, calling a NOPpy function on CONFIG_RETPOLINE=n is the least
of our troubles. Also, the installations running CONFIG_RETPOLINE=n are
going to be a very very very small number.

> > +void __fill_rsb(void)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long loops;
> > +
> > +	asm volatile (__stringify(__FILL_RETURN_BUFFER(%0, RSB_CLEAR_LOOPS, %1))
> > +		      : "=r" (loops), ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT
> > +		      : : "memory" );
> > +}
> > +#endif
> 
> The out-of-line function should be __clear_rsb() if it's using
> RSB_CLEAR_LOOPS, and __fill_rsb() if it's using RSB_FILL_LOOPS. I think
> we're only using one right now but Andi at least is posting patches
> which use the other, as part of the Skylake clusterfuck.

Ok.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.