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, 10 Jan 2019 10:44:01 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc:     X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.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>,
        Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Static calls
Message-ID: <20190110164401.g747vifrppbhbo3o@treble>
References: <cover.1547073843.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <A42784EF-3215-4ED9-8D35-1A2C38A0711F@vmware.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <A42784EF-3215-4ED9-8D35-1A2C38A0711F@vmware.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 01:21:00AM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 2019, at 2:59 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > With this version, I stopped trying to use text_poke_bp(), and instead
> > went with a different approach: if the call site destination doesn't
> > cross a cacheline boundary, just do an atomic write.  Otherwise, keep
> > using the trampoline indefinitely.
> > 
> > NOTE: At least experimentally, the call destination writes seem to be
> > atomic with respect to instruction fetching.  On Nehalem I can easily
> > trigger crashes when writing a call destination across cachelines while
> > reading the instruction on other CPU; but I get no such crashes when
> > respecting cacheline boundaries.
> > 
> > BUT, the SDM doesn't document this approach, so it would be great if any
> > CPU people can confirm that it's safe!
> > 
> 
> I (still) think that having a compiler plugin can make things much cleaner
> (as done in [1]). The callers would not need to be changed, and the key can
> be provided through an attribute.
> 
> Using a plugin should also allow to use Steven’s proposal for doing
> text_poke() safely: by changing 'func()' into 'asm (“call func”)', as done
> by the plugin, you can be guaranteed that registers are clobbered. Then, you
> can store in the assembly block the return address in one of these
> registers.

I'm no GCC expert (why do I find myself saying this a lot lately?), but
this sounds to me like it could be tricky to get right.

I suppose you'd have to do it in an early pass, to allow GCC to clobber
the registers in a later pass.  So it would necessarily have side
effects, but I don't know what the risks are.

Would it work with more than 5 arguments, where args get passed on the
stack?

At the very least, it would (at least partially) defeat the point of the
callee-saved paravirt ops.

What if we just used a plugin in a simpler fashion -- to do call site
alignment, if necessary, to ensure the instruction doesn't cross
cacheline boundaries.  This could be done in a later pass, with no side
effects other than code layout.  And it would allow us to avoid
breakpoints altogether -- again, assuming somebody can verify that
intra-cacheline call destination writes are atomic with respect to
instruction decoder reads.

-- 
Josh