Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:17:13 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai+lkml@gmail.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>,
        Jason Chen CJ <jason.cj.chen@intel.com>,
        Zhao Yakui <yakui.zhao@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V6 00/37] x86/entry: Rework leftovers and merge plan
Message-ID: <20200615161713.GH2554@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200518160750.GA279861@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <87367xvvmy.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20200519083826.GC279861@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200519090226.GD279861@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAJhGHyCStHRzqv2Di57ALnBiPCpKjob4TG6Hj76+NowpNLqD7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200523130836.GB2483@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200523130836.GB2483@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 03:08:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 10:52:24AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I, who don't know how does the objtool handle it, am just curious.
> > _begin() and _end() are symmetrical, which means if _end() (without nop)
> > can escape, so can _begin() in a reverse way. For example:
> > 
> > noinstr void foo()
> > {
> >     instrumentation_begin();
> >     do {
> >             instrumentation_begin();
> >             ...
> >             instrumentation_end();
> >     } while (cond);
> >     bar();
> >     instrumentation_end();
> > }
> > 
> > Here, the first _begin() can be "dragged" into the do-while block.
> > Expectedly, objtool validation should not complain here.
> > 
> > But objtool validation's not complaining means it can handle it
> > magically correctly (by distinguishing how many _begin()s should
> > be taken around the jmp target when jmp in a specific path), or
> > handle it by not checking if all paths have the same count onto
> > a jmp target (a little nervous to me), or other possible ways.
> 
> No, I tihnk you're right. It could be we never hit this particular
> problem. Even the one described, where end leaks out, is quite rare. For
> instance, the last one I debgged (that led to this patch) only showed
> itself with gcc-9, but not with gcc-8 for example.
> 
> Anyway, if we ever find the above, I'll add the NOP to begin too.

FYI, I just found one, I'll be making instrumentation_begin() a NOP
too.