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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181003213100.189959-1-namit@vmware.com> <20181003213100.189959-5-namit@vmware.com>
 <20181004075755.GA3353@gmail.com> <20181004083333.GA9802@gmail.com>
 <10D29A50-C352-4407-A824-0C3C06CD8592@zytor.com> <A5DED74C-A95A-48D8-AF68-39E23696385F@vmware.com>
 <36D6F606-6922-4057-B1F8-2B30993962AE@zytor.com> <20181004091651.GB21151@gmail.com>
 <df1bddc1-e71b-dbd8-a24f-01a46d462a79@zytor.com>
In-Reply-To: <df1bddc1-e71b-dbd8-a24f-01a46d462a79@zytor.com>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:29:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CALCETrUm255shi0ba8j+ZJhkxv9HdDJ9A70U1T28bEHEMQi+8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 04/10] x86: refcount: prevent gcc distortions
To:     "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:33 PM H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/04/18 02:16, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * hpa@zytor.com <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ingo: I wasn't talking necessarily about the specifics of each bit, but rather the general
> >> concept about being able to use macros in inlines...
> >
> > Ok, agreed about that part - and some of the patches did improve readability.
> >
> > Also, the 275 lines macros.s is a lot nicer than the 4,200 lines macros.S.
> >
> > Also, I'm not against using workarounds when the benefits are larger than the costs, but I am
> > against *hiding* the fact that these are workarounds and that for some of them there are costs.
> >
>
> Agreed, of course.
>
> >> I can send you something I have been working on in the background, but have been holding off
> >> on because of this, in the morning my time.
> >
> > BTW., I have applied most of the series to tip:x86/kbuild already, and will push them out later
> > today after some testing. I didn't apply the final 3 patches as they have dependencies, but
> > applied the basics and fixed up the changelogs.
> >
> > So you can rely on this.
> >
>
> Wonderful.
>
> Here is the horrible code I mentioned yesterday.  This is about
> implementing the immediate-patching framework that Linus and others have
> discussed (it helps both performance and kernel hardening):
>

I'm wondering if a production version should look more like:

patch_point:
mov $whatever, [target]
.pushsection ".immediate_patches"
.quad .Lpatch_point
.popsection

and let objtool parse the resulting assembled output and emit an entry
in some table mapping patch_point to the actual address and size of
the immediate to be patched.