linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/paravirt: Don't make vcpu_is

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:00:43 -0800
From:   hpa@...or.com
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
CC:     Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
        Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
        Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/paravirt: Don't make vcpu_is_preempted() a callee-save function

On February 13, 2017 1:52:20 PM PST, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 03:12:45PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 02/13/2017 02:42 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
>> > On 02/13/2017 05:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> >>> That way we'd end up with something like:
>> >>>
>> >>> asm("
>> >>> push %rdi;
>> >>> movslq %edi, %rdi;
>> >>> movq __per_cpu_offset(,%rdi,8), %rax;
>> >>> cmpb $0, %[offset](%rax);
>> >>> setne %al;
>> >>> pop %rdi;
>> >>> " : : [offset] "i" (((unsigned long)&steal_time) +
>offsetof(struct steal_time, preempted)));
>> >>>
>> >>> And if we could get rid of the sign extend on edi we could avoid
>all the
>> >>> push-pop nonsense, but I'm not sure I see how to do that (then
>again,
>> >>> this asm foo isn't my strongest point).
>> >> Maybe:
>> >>
>> >> movsql %edi, %rax;
>> >> movq __per_cpu_offset(,%rax,8), %rax;
>> >> cmpb $0, %[offset](%rax);
>> >> setne %al;
>> >>
>> >> ?
>> > Yes, that looks good to me.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Longman
>> >
>> Sorry, I am going to take it back. The displacement or offset can
>only
>> be up to 32-bit. So we will still need to use at least one more
>> register, I think.
>
>I don't think that would be a problem, I very much doubt we declare
>more
>than 4G worth of per-cpu variables in the kernel.
>
>In any case, use "e" or "Z" as constraint (I never quite know when to
>use which). That are s32 and u32 displacement immediates resp. and
>should fail compile with a semi-sensible failure if the displacement is
>too big.

e for signed, Z for unsigned.  Obviously you have to use a matching instruction: an immediate or displacement in a 64-bit instruction is sign-extended, in a 32-bit instruction zero-extended.  E.g.:

   movl %0,%%eax # use Z, all of %rax will be set
   movq %0,%%rax # use e
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.