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:   Tue, 21 Sep 2021 17:08:23 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: implement support for static call trampolines
Message-ID: <YUn1ZySphVBzaBfg@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210920233237.90463-1-frederic@kernel.org>
 <20210920233237.90463-3-frederic@kernel.org>
 <YUmFFvZCb2yXn3os@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAMj1kXEVjKGkRU_4JWH5d9YzT+pYVuEZYPNLw0VkUAb6d+W9kQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXEVjKGkRU_4JWH5d9YzT+pYVuEZYPNLw0VkUAb6d+W9kQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 04:44:56PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 09:10, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 01:32:35AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > > +#define __ARCH_DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_TRAMP(name, target)                            \
> > > +     asm("   .pushsection    .static_call.text, \"ax\"               \n" \
> > > +         "   .align          3                                       \n" \
> > > +         "   .globl          " STATIC_CALL_TRAMP_STR(name) "         \n" \
> > > +         STATIC_CALL_TRAMP_STR(name) ":                              \n" \
> > > +         "   hint    34      /* BTI C */                             \n" \
> > > +         "   adrp    x16, 1f                                         \n" \
> > > +         "   ldr     x16, [x16, :lo12:1f]                            \n" \
> > > +         "   cbz     x16, 0f                                         \n" \
> > > +         "   br      x16                                             \n" \
> > > +         "0: ret                                                     \n" \
> > > +         "   .popsection                                             \n" \
> > > +         "   .pushsection    .rodata, \"a\"                          \n" \
> > > +         "   .align          3                                       \n" \
> > > +         "1: .quad           " target "                              \n" \
> > > +         "   .popsection                                             \n")
> >
> > So I like what Christophe did for PPC32:
> >
> >   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/6ec2a7865ed6a5ec54ab46d026785bafe1d837ea.1630484892.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu
> >
> > Where he starts with an unconditional jmp and uses that IFF the offset
> > fits and only does the data load when it doesn't. Ard, woulnd't that
> > also make sense on ARM64? I'm thinking most in-kernel function pointers
> > would actually fit, it's just the module muck that gets to have too
> > large pointers, no?
> >
> 
> Yeah, I'd have to page that back in. But it seems like the following
> 
>   bti c
>   <branch>
>   adrp x16, <literal>
>   ldr x16, [x16, ...]
>   br x16
> 
> with <branch> either set to 'b target' for the near targets, 'ret' for
> the NULL target, and 'nop' for the far targets should work, and the
> architecture permits patching branches into NOPs and vice versa
> without special synchronization. But I must be missing something here,
> or why did we have that long discussion before?

So the fundamental contraint is that we can only modify a single
instruction at the time and need to consider concurrent execution.

I think the first round of discussions was around getting the normal arm
pattern of constructing a long pointer 'working'. My initial suggestion
was to have 2 slots for that, then you came up with this data load
thing.