[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 14:13:44 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"live-patching@...r.kernel.org" <live-patching@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] x86/unwind: add ORC unwinder
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 12:03:51PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Take for example the lock_is_held_type() function. In vmlinux, it has
> > the following instruction:
> >
> > callq *0xffffffff85a94880 (pv_irq_ops.save_fl)
> >
> > At runtime, that instruction is patched and replaced with a fast inline
> > version of arch_local_save_flags() which eliminates the call:
> >
> > pushfq
> > pop %rax
> >
> > The problem is when an interrupt hits after the push:
> >
> > pushfq
> > --- irq ---
> > pop %rax
>
> That should actually be something easily fixable, for an odd reason:
> the instruction boundaries are different.
>
> > I'm not sure what the solution should be. It will probably need to be
> > one of the following:
> >
> > a) either don't allow runtime "alternative" patches to mess with the
> > stack pointer (objtool could enforce this); or
> >
> > b) come up with some way to register such patches with the ORC
> > unwinder at runtime.
>
> c) just add ORC data for the alternative statically and _unconditionally_.
>
> No runtime registration. Just an unconditional entry for the
> particular IP that comes after the "pushfq". It cannot match the
> "callq" instruction, since it would be in the middle of that
> instruction.
>
> Basically, just do a "union" of the ORC data for all the alternatives.
>
> Now, objtool should still verify that the instruction pointers for
> alternatives are unique - or that they share the same ORC unwinder
> information if they are not.
>
> But in cases like this, when the instruction boundaires are different,
> things should "just work", with no need for any special cases.
>
> Hmm?
Yeah, that might work. Objtool already knows about alternatives, so it
might not be too hard. I'll try it.
And it can spit out a warning if we get two different ORC states for the
same address after doing the "union". Then I guess we'd have to
rearrange things or sprinkle some nops to work around it.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists