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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200915172658.1432732-1-rkir@google.com> <20200915174643.GT14436@zn.tnic>
 <CAOGAQepp_1QXrNAAXbLpW8qrujfdszfU2rMoh804wKK-Ja66Yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200915182730.GW14436@zn.tnic> <CAOGAQeqhKS48Kd8W4y13ATT3m+nJSksF_U1SJ=SBrOZFrDq9Nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200918222531.GD7443@duo.ucw.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20200918222531.GD7443@duo.ucw.cz>
From:   Roman Kiryanov <rkir@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Sep 2020 16:28:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOGAQepVWwMvA_m_kZpwQ4UN+ziR+=w2auiL1euFyuGvyCU7SQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch: x86: power: cpu: init %gs before
 __restore_processor_state (clang)
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, mingo@redhat.com,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Alistair Delva <adelva@google.com>,
        Haitao Shan <hshan@google.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 3:25 PM Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de> wrote:
>
> On Tue 2020-09-15 11:36:13, Roman Kiryanov wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 11:27 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> > > > I believe the kernel makes a questionable assumption on how clang
> > > > uses registers (gs will not be used if stack protection is disabled).
> > > > Both kernel and clang behaves unfortunate here.
> > >
> > > If the kernel is at fault here and this same thing happens with GCC,
> > > sure, but this is a clang-specific fix.
> >
> > This is fair. Unfortunately I am not an x86 asm expert. I expect the proper
> > fix should land into arch/x86/kernel/acpi/wakeup_64.S to init %gs
> > (maybe some more registers) before "jmp restore_processor_state".
>
> That would certainly be nicer / more acceptable solution than patch
> being proposed here.
>
> Code was written with assumption compiler random C code would not use
> %gs. If that's no longer true, fixing it in wakeup_64.S _with comments
> explaining what goes on_ might be solution.

I looked and restore_processor_state is referenced in several places,
so changing
wakeup_64.S is not enough. Is moving the beginning of restore_processor_state
to an .S file ok? I see restore_processor_state initializes CR registers first,
do you know if there is a reason to do so (can I init segment
registers before CR ones)?

Regards,
Roman.