linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86/static_call: Add inline static call implementation for x86-64

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 15:04:20 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, mhiramat@...nel.org,
        jbaron@...mai.com, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        David.Laight@...lab.com, bp@...en8.de, julia@...com,
        jeyu@...nel.org, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86/static_call: Add inline static call
 implementation for x86-64

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 12:25 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:27:00AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > I propose a different solution:
> >
> > As in this patch set, we have a direct and an indirect version.  The
> > indirect version remains exactly the same as in this patch set.  The
> > direct version just only does the patching when all seems well: the
> > call instruction needs to be 0xe8, and we only do it when the thing
> > doesn't cross a cache line.  Does that work?  In the rare case where
> > the compiler generates something other than 0xe8 or crosses a cache
> > line, then the thing just remains as a call to the out of line jmp
> > trampoline.  Does that seem reasonable?  It's a very minor change to
> > the patch set.
>
> Maybe that would be ok.  If my math is right, we would use the
> out-of-line version almost 5% of the time due to cache misalignment of
> the address.

Note that I don't think cache-line alignment is necessarily sufficient.

The I$ fetch from the cacheline can happen in smaller chunks, because
the bus between the I$ and the instruction decode isn't a full
cacheline (well, it is _now_ in modern big cores, but it hasn't always
been).

So even if the cacheline is updated atomically, I could imagine seeing
a partial fetch from the I$ (old values) and then a second partial
fetch (new values).

It would be interesting to know what the exact fetch rules are.

             Linus