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:   Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:33:05 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] static_call: Add static call infrastructure
Message-ID: <20181109173305.2trzwl7ugczxf6rg@treble>
References: <cover.1541711457.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <3cf04e113d71c9f8e4be95fb84a510f085aa4afa.1541711457.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <CAKv+Gu9bMkFEx_GxH3uLm0gveQurp7ELDi6C5NvpugufPFMbRA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181109151028.faifw66enzye32gg@treble>
 <CAKv+Gu_J1b30+pMNRF0icEpyew4TM_VP3ShG=4HkLnk=fRL9zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKv+Gu-DOW2WT=h8C0x5igbCDAc2bp3mTRM6U_wTJST+RnVicg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181109173106.kbghzsdsu7oachl6@treble>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181109173106.kbghzsdsu7oachl6@treble>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 11:31:06AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 06:25:24PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On 9 November 2018 at 16:14, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > On 9 November 2018 at 16:10, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:39:17PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > >>> > +       for (site = start; site < stop; site++) {
> > >>> > +               struct static_call_key *key = static_call_key(site);
> > >>> > +               unsigned long addr = static_call_addr(site);
> > >>> > +
> > >>> > +               if (list_empty(&key->site_mods)) {
> > >>> > +                       struct static_call_mod *mod;
> > >>> > +
> > >>> > +                       mod = kzalloc(sizeof(*mod), GFP_KERNEL);
> > >>> > +                       if (!mod) {
> > >>> > +                               WARN(1, "Failed to allocate memory for static calls");
> > >>> > +                               return;
> > >>> > +                       }
> > >>> > +
> > >>> > +                       mod->sites = site;
> > >>> > +                       list_add_tail(&mod->list, &key->site_mods);
> > >>> > +
> > >>> > +                       /*
> > >>> > +                        * The trampoline should no longer be used.  Poison it
> > >>> > +                        * it with a BUG() to catch any stray callers.
> > >>> > +                        */
> > >>> > +                       arch_static_call_poison_tramp(addr);
> > >>>
> > >>> This patches the wrong thing: the trampoline is at key->func not addr.
> > >>
> > >> If you look at the x86 implementation, it actually does poison the
> > >> trampoline.
> > >>
> > >> The address of the trampoline isn't actually known here.  key->func
> > >> isn't the trampoline address; it's the destination func address.
> > >>
> > >> So instead I passed the address of the call instruction.  The arch code
> > >> then reads the instruction to find the callee (the trampoline).
> > >>
> > >> The code is a bit confusing.  To make it more obvious, maybe we should
> > >> add another arch function to read the call destination.  Then this code
> > >> can pass that into arch_static_call_poison_tramp().
> > >>
> > >
> > > Ah right, so I am basically missing a dereference in my
> > > arch_static_call_poison_tramp() code if this breaks.
> > >
> > 
> > Could we call it 'defuse' rather than 'poision'? On arm64, we will
> > need to keep it around to bounce function calls that are out of range,
> > and replace it with a PLT sequence.
> 
> Ok, but doesn't that defeat the purpose of the inline approach?

Or are you only going to use the trampoline for out-of-range calls,
otherwise just do direct calls?

-- 
Josh