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;
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 08/24] x86/entry: Add C version of SWAPGS and
 SWAPGS_UNSAFE_STACK
To:     tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com,
        x86@kernel.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, luto@kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        thomas.lendacky@amd.com, jroedel@suse.de
Cc:     konrad.wilk@oracle.com, jan.setjeeilers@oracle.com,
        junaids@google.com, oweisse@google.com, rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        graf@amazon.de, mgross@linux.intel.com, kuzuno@gmail.com
References: <20201109144425.270789-1-alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
 <20201109144425.270789-9-alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
From:   Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <a0febfb8-4efb-6b27-e7c5-78ad33ae1e3d@oracle.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Nov 2020 20:55:02 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201109144425.270789-9-alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


[Copying the reply to Andy in the thread with the right email addresses]

On 11/9/20 6:38 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 3:22 AM Alexandre Chartre
> <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> SWAPGS and SWAPGS_UNSAFE_STACK are assembly macros. Add C versions
>> of these macros (swapgs() and swapgs_unsafe_stack()).
>
> This needs a very good justification.  It also needs some kind of
> static verification that these helpers are only used by noinstr code,
> and they need to be __always_inline.  And I cannot fathom how C code
> could possibly use SWAPGS_UNSAFE_STACK in a meaningful way.
>

You're right, I probably need to revisit the usage of SWAPGS_UNSAFE_STACK
in C code, that doesn't make sense. Looks like only SWAPGS is then needed.

Or maybe we can just use native_swapgs() instead?

I have added a C version of SWAPGS for moving paranoid_entry() to C because,
in this function, we need to switch CR3 before doing the updating GS. But I
really wonder if we need a paravirt swapgs here, and we can probably just use
native_swapgs().

Also, if we map the per cpu offsets (__per_cpu_offset) in the user page-table
then we will be able to update GS before switching CR3. That way we can keep the
GS update in assembly code, and just do the CR3 switch in C code. This would also
avoid having to disable stack-protector (patch 21).

alex.