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, 26 Oct 2021 12:45:55 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: implement support for static call trampolines
Message-ID: <YXfcY7PPAvOK9E+8@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20211025122102.46089-1-frederic@kernel.org>
 <20211025122102.46089-3-frederic@kernel.org>
 <YXa3q2AOH0T+smFy@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAMj1kXELqoVp5zBcQ8g+0O56sBq9qAEDO-7OTenDkpRcb7oeQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YXa85OTw7i3Bg9yj@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <YXbC3NRWDDfsW6DG@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAMj1kXEKASsYJMHHNA=uNGTnLMoXO_4BP0--1k7cEfZZupdsog@mail.gmail.com>
 <YXbHJCtkBdMP/bF6@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAMj1kXHYXzU=pW6tUJB61QW5VBL7WKBhT7BkNJ970FQdHz1VVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211026103655.GB30152@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20211026103655.GB30152@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 11:36:55AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:

> My preference overall is to keep the trampoline self-contained, and I'd
> prefer to keep the RET inline in the trampoline rather than trying to
> factor it out so that all the control-flow is clearly in one place.
> 
> So I'd prefer that we have the sequence as-is:
> 
> | 0:	.quad 0x0
> | 	bti	c
> | 	< insn >
> | 	ldr	x16, 0b
> | 	cbz	x16, 1f
> | 	br	x16
> | 1:	ret

OK, fair enough. In that case:

Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>

Although I do think that function can use a comment to explain the magic
involved.

> If we knew these were only called with IRQs enabled (and so we can take
> an IPI to generate a context synchronization event), we could patch
> <insn> to a RET and point the literal back at the BTI, e.g.

Given the static_call() usage on x86 I'm pretty sure you'll want them
with IRQs disabled.