[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160120054256.GA31495@treble.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 23:42:56 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at>,
Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@...onical.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 13/25] x86/reboot: Add ljmp instructions to stacktool
whitelist
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:00:00PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:06:52AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > - xen_cpuid() uses some custom xen instructions which start with
> > > XEN_EMULATE_PREFIX. It corresponds to the following x86 instructions:
> > >
> > > ffffffff8107e572: 0f 0b ud2
> > > ffffffff8107e574: 78 65 js ffffffff8107e5db <xen_get_debugreg+0xa>
> > > ffffffff8107e576: 6e outsb %ds:(%rsi),(%dx)
> > >
> > > Apparently(?) xen treats the ud2 special when it's followed by "78 65
> > > 6e". This is confusing for stacktool because ud2 is normally a dead
> > > end, and it thinks the instructions after it will never run.
> > >
> > > (In theory stacktool could be taught to understand this hack, but
> > > that's a bad idea IMO)
> >
> > Why, because it is not generic enough?
> >
> > Well, you could add a cmdline option "--kernel" which is supplied when
> > checking the kernel and such kernel "idiosyncrasies" are handled only
> > then and there. And since the tool is part of the kernel, changes to
> > XEN_EMULATE_PREFIX, will have to be updated in stacktool too...
>
> So I think because we are talking about less than a dozen annotations, these are
> technicalities - and it might in fact be better to have a single line of obvious
> annotation in a function that does something weird (and arguably all of these
> functions do something weird), than having dozens of lines of code on the tooling
> side to avoid that single line on the kernel side.
>
> That has a documentation value as well.
>
> As long as the annotation itself is not stacktool specific, it should serve as
> documentation as well - such as:
>
> __non_standard_stack_frame
>
> or:
>
> __non_C_instructions
>
> ?
>
> All of the cases Josh listed involve some sort of special case where we do
> something non-standard. (Where 'standard' == 'regular kernel C function'.)
I've now gotten the number of warnings down to 0 (except for a few
staging drivers), even with allyesconfig (with !CONFIG_GCOV).
I've also managed to make stacktool a little smarter such that the
in-code STACKTOOL_IGNORE_INSN markers are no longer needed, woot!
There's still a need for 4 STACKTOOL_IGNORE_FUNC(name) markers in the
entire tree, due to the weird cases I mentioned. But they're placed
after the functions, so they're much less disruptive.
I'll be posting a v16 soon.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists