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:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:16:48 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, mhiramat@kernel.org,
        jbaron@akamai.com, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
        David.Laight@aculab.com, bp@alien8.de, julia@ni.com,
        jeyu@kernel.org, Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86/static_call: Add inline static call
 implementation for x86-64
Message-ID: <20181129141648.6ef944a9@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgbnQs4fpuHqT1jLkDnKcvTGS5EN8m=qy7oUE5n_fhOig@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20181126160217.GR2113@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
        <CALCETrXam8JBtXE3S97Vyb_=+pmjgr23SoZ-Dm5pmYtwZYA+7Q@mail.gmail.com>
        <20181129094210.GC2131@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
        <ECF632D9-581B-40B7-9F0A-6B5607A4D0E3@amacapital.net>
        <20181129143853.GO2131@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
        <20181129163342.tp5wlfcyiazwwyoh@treble>
        <CAHk-=wg5wUXJX5mF+22WXWM_vPESb+p6-z-ZrG7rC1k2O7u=NQ@mail.gmail.com>
        <0A629D30-ADCF-4159-9443-E5727146F65F@amacapital.net>
        <20181129121307.12393c57@gandalf.local.home>
        <CAHk-=wik5AfDs7qqjGHQ5vRBYkV8K6tFmPna3PdbwdzVwPGTsg@mail.gmail.com>
        <20181129124404.2fe55dd0@gandalf.local.home>
        <CAHk-=wgnZobye-KNaBVO-SdqX-5Xkz+i=aJ_kOFZ4RpZFT0HqQ@mail.gmail.com>
        <20181129125857.75c55b96@gandalf.local.home>
        <CAHk-=wigLUgxDM6Dq2aS7efduffratP976Ggmpv4Ev4EOrJxyA@mail.gmail.com>
        <20181129134725.6d86ade6@gandalf.local.home>
        <CAHk-=wgbnQs4fpuHqT1jLkDnKcvTGS5EN8m=qy7oUE5n_fhOig@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 10:58:40 -0800
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:47 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > Note, we do have a bit of control at what is getting called. The patch
> > set requires that the callers are wrapped in macros. We should not
> > allow just any random callers (like from asm).  
> 
> Actually, I'd argue that asm is often more controlled than C code.
> 
> Right now you can do odd things if you really want to, and have the
> compiler generate indirect calls to those wrapper functions.
> 
> For example, I can easily imagine a pre-retpoline compiler turning
> 
>      if (cond)
>         fn1(a,b)
>      else
>        fn2(a,b);
> 
> into a function pointer conditional
> 
>     (cond ? fn1 : fn2)(a,b);

If we are worried about such a construct, wouldn't a compiler barrier
before and after the static_call solve that?

	barrier();
	static_call(func...);
	barrier();

It should also stop tail calls too.

> 
> and honestly, the way "static_call()" works now, can you guarantee
> that the call-site doesn't end up doing that, and calling the
> trampoline function for two different static calls from one indirect
> call?
> 
> See what I'm talking about? Saying "callers are wrapped in macros"
> doesn't actually protect you from the compiler doing things like that.
> 
> In contrast, if the call was wrapped in an inline asm, we'd *know* the
> compiler couldn't turn a "call wrapper(%rip)" into anything else.

But then we need to implement all numbers of parameters.

-- Steve