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;
Reply-To: zhenzhong.duan@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] kprobes/x86: Simplify indirect-jump check in
 retpoline
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, mingo@redhat.com,
        konrad.wilk@oracle.com, dwmw@amazon.co.uk, tglx@linutronix.de,
        Srinivas REDDY Eeda <srinivas.eeda@oracle.com>, bp@suse.de,
        hpa@zytor.com
References: <cc8f9981-f327-4238-8378-262579584db4@default>
 <20181030083650.GB1459@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <849ae148-85cd-5f46-d98b-b827cc9c605c@oracle.com>
 <20181031135320.GC13237@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20181031140032.GB13257@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@oracle.com>
Organization: Oracle
Message-ID: <04040fa2-02c6-9aa6-15fe-609ad21b3426@oracle.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Nov 2018 10:02:14 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20181031140032.GB13257@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2018/10/31 22:00, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 02:53:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 02:01:20PM +0800, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>>> On 2018/10/30 16:36, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 11:55:06PM -0700, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>>>>> Since CONFIG_RETPOLINE hard depends on compiler support now, so
>>>>> replacing indirect-jump check with the range check is safe in that case.
>>>>
>>>> Can we put kprobes on module init text before we run alternatives on it?
>>>
>>> Forgive me I doesn't understand your question. Do you mean this patch impact
>>> kprobes on module init text?
>>
>> In that case we would still see the indirect paravirt calls for example,
>> and we'd still need that cascade you took out.

Understood.
In another case when loading a non-retpoline module, we suffer the same.
>>
>> Now, I'm not at all sure we're able to use kprobes at those times, so it
>> might be a non-issue.

Not sure, but if it's possible then alternative patching may cover the 
kprobes, it looks like a bug.
> 
> Hmm, what about the case where we have RETPOLINE runtime disabled? Then
> the CALL_NOSPEC alternative patches in an indirect call again, and the
> retpolines are gone.

Is RETPOLINE runtime toggle supported in upstream? I don't see such code.
> 
> Does that not need the __insn_is_indirect_jump() thing?

Yes it's needed if RETPOLINE runtime disabled.

Based on all above reasons, I'd like to drop this patch.

Thanks
Zhenzhong