Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-4907-g25ce6f34a9-fm-20220311.001-g25ce6f34
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <4ac71b88-4848-456f-8b34-518ca7622fee@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220318234212.GU614@gate.crashing.org>
References: <CAGG=3QVu5QjQK8m2FWiYn-XQuVBjUGXcbznSbK22jVMB5GAutw@mail.gmail.com>
 <F5296439-4CA3-4F31-BD91-5ED1510BC382@zytor.com>
 <CAKwvOdkk-C8HMemKs4+yoxvNDgTLmvZG1rmwjVXBqhsQ-cED5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whJfKN8Jag=8DS=pbZR3TY90znUOP6Km+TLRJ9dZEgNqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <fd89333f-e470-a295-baf6-a736c55caeb5@citrix.com>
 <CAHk-=wj47CG0Y9GOFmGg4AYFvXhRFDX9x7E2Uxo9k-UX2wgR4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <83b33afc-8502-0065-60bc-3a91528632d8@kernel.org>
 <CAHk-=wj1Z_zzY7ADxaarorK5sh2xkwbcHxJTzW=bsYChWJGBGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9a97330b-e5ee-7b7e-4c7a-cfdf15032094@citrix.com>
 <CAHk-=wgKBme-SdbkSxbQ4+c6tZdvY2fe1wP1TgJeuDAf+AgwMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220318234212.GU614@gate.crashing.org>
Date:   Sat, 19 Mar 2022 16:15:39 -0700
From:   "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@kernel.org>
To:     "Segher Boessenkool" <segher@kernel.crashing.org>,
        "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "Andrew Cooper" <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>,
        "Nick Desaulniers" <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "Bill Wendling" <morbo@google.com>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "Nathan Chancellor" <nathan@kernel.org>,
        "Juergen Gross" <jgross@suse.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "llvm@lists.linux.dev" <llvm@lists.linux.dev>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-toolchains <linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] x86: use builtins to read eflags
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk


On Fri, Mar 18, 2022, at 4:42 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 04:10:55PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> It would be lovely to have some explicit model for "I want the frame
>> to have been set up for backtraces", but here we are.
>
> So please define exactly what that *means*?  Preferably portably, but I
> reckon at least some of it will have to be machine-specific (and ABI-
> specific).  But it needs to be well-defined, clearly defined, defined =
at
> all, and *documented* :-)
>
>> Marking '%rsp
>> used makes the compiler understand it's not a leaf function.
>
> As I said before, this is explicitly incorrect code.  Always was, but
> it is documented since a while (since GCC 9).  Clobbering the stack
> pointer can never be correct, the stack pointer after an asm has to be
> identical to the one before that asm!
>
>> And while we have other uses for it that then use the actual value,
>> those don't care about the exact value of the stack pointer register,
>> they just want "give me a pointer that is contained within the current
>> stack", because we control the stack allocation and do funky things
>> there. So "any random stack pointer value in this function" is
>> perfectly fine and expected.
>
> You can use %rsp as *input* operand just fine, which is all you need f=
or
> that.
>
>> But for user mode, it would probably be a great idea to also have a "I
>> cannot use a redzone in this function" thing. The kernel can't use it
>> because we have nested exceptions, but maybe some day even the kernel
>> could make use of (controlled) red-zoning.
>
> Yes.  We just have to figure out what the exact semantics we want is,
> and how to express that in a target-independent way, and then relatedly
> what a good name for it would be ("redzone" in the clobber list is the
> best I can come up with right now, but that may have to change).

Here=E2=80=99s the semantics I want:

I want to tell the compiler that an asm statement makes a function call.=
 I want to specify the stack alignment and offset I need.  I want the co=
mpiler to make it work. Something like this, but preferably with better =
syntax:

asm("asm here" ::: "call" (align=3D16, offset=3D0));

This means that the asm in question wants rsp to be 0 more than a multip=
le of 16 and that it wants precisely the setup needed for a call to be d=
one. If frame pointers are enabled, a frame should be set up. If there i=
s a redzone then either the compiler needs to not use it or needs to adv=
ance rsp past it.

>
>
> Segher