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;
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To:     Michal =?utf-8?Q?Such=C3=A1nek?= <msuchanek@suse.de>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc:     Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mahesh Salgaonkar <mahesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>,
        "Bryant G. Ly" <bryantly@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>,
        =?utf-8?Q?C=C3=A9dric?= Le Goater <clg@kaod.org>,
        David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "Tobin C. Harding" <me@tobin.cc>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC rebase 3/9] powerpc/64: Use barrier_nospec in syscall entry
In-Reply-To: <20180316101549.31238bdf@naga.suse.cz>
References: <20180313200108.GA4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <cover.1521141122.git.msuchanek@suse.de> <b8253774e223530c808eed65d116deecc46ad36b.1521141122.git.msuchanek@suse.de> <20180316151823.2f28d5ea@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20180316101549.31238bdf@naga.suse.cz>
Date:   Sat, 17 Mar 2018 00:28:42 +1100
Message-ID: <873710i1yt.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Michal,

Thanks for working on this series in the absence of any documentation.

Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de> writes:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 15:18:23 +1000
> Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 20:15:52 +0100
>> Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@suse.de> wrote:
>> 
>> > On powerpc syscall entry is done in assembly so patch in an explicit
>> > barrier_nospec.  
>> 
>> Same comment as Linus for this -- the barriers are before the branch
>> here, so is it possible the branch instruction can be speculative
>> while the index is used to load the syscall table?
>
> As far as I understand barriers they separate code before the barrier
> and code after the barrier.
>
> So inserting barrier_nospec after cmpldi means that the result of the
> cmpldi has to be known before any instruction following barrier_nospec
> that depends on the result can be executed. 

That would make sense, but I don't think that's how the barrier's been
defined.

I don't have a formal spec for it (yet), but what I do have indicates it
only orders older branches vs future instructions.

> However, you have probably knowledge of the powerpc implementation of
> the barrier so if the semantic is actually different then please
> enlighten me.

We have some knowledge, but only some :)

It's not necessarily implemented the same way on each chip revision, so
it's not entirely clear what the formal semantics will be vs what we are
seeing in current implementations. But I think it's safe to say it
should always go after the branch that might be speculatively executed.

Will try and get some better documentation for you.

cheers