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 12:39:28 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.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: <20181008123929.0d5313cb@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <F36C6419-7D92-4357-BDB1-D8B90DE09889@amacapital.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>
        <20181008155757.GC5663@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
        <F36C6419-7D92-4357-BDB1-D8B90DE09889@amacapital.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:29:56 -0700
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:

> > On Oct 8, 2018, at 8:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > 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?  
> 
> There’s also JMP and Jcc, any of which can be used for rail calls, but those are also one byte. I suppose GCC is unlikely to emit a prefixed form of any of these. So maybe we really can assume they’re all one byte.
> 
> But there is a nasty potential special case: anything that takes the function’s address. This includes jump tables, computed gotos, and plain old function pointers. And I suspect that any of these could have one of the rather large number of CALL/JMP/Jcc bytes before the relocation by coincidence.
> 

FYI, your email client is horrible to read from decent email clients :-p

Anyway,

I'd like to have these "dynamic functions" be "special" where they
can't be added to tables or what not. If you need to add one to a
table or function pointer, then you need to have a wrapper function
that does the call. I think we can come up with some kind of wrapper or
linker magic to enforce this too.

-- Steve