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:   Mon, 8 Oct 2018 17:57:57 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Matthew Helsley <mhelsley@vmware.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
        ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [POC][RFC][PATCH 1/2] jump_function: Addition of new feature
 "jump_function"
Message-ID: <20181008155757.GC5663@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20181006015110.653946300@goodmis.org>
 <20181006015720.634688468@goodmis.org>
 <20181006121211.GA5663@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20181006093905.46276505@vmware.local.home>
 <20181008072134.GB5663@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <A9379DDB-3210-407C-8157-8DA980944F8C@amacapital.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <A9379DDB-3210-407C-8157-8DA980944F8C@amacapital.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 01:33:14AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Can't we hijack the relocation records for these functions before they
> > get thrown out in the (final) link pass or something?
> 
> I could be talking out my arse here, but I thought we could do this,
> too, then changed my mind.  The relocation records give us the
> location of the call or jump operand, but they don’t give the address
> of the beginning of the instruction.

But that's like 1 byte before the operand, right? We could even double check
this by reading back that byte and ensuring it is in fact 0xE8 (CALL).

AFAICT there is only the _1_ CALL encoding, and that is the 5 byte: E8 <PLT32>,
so if we have the PLT32 location, we also have the instruction location. Or am
I missing something?