[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrU2880h-SZqB+oP0Dc1Lgc4irLEFu=FgXLRi9xU65a72g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 20:14:50 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bpetkov@...e.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/18] x86/asm/64: Use a percpu trampoline stack for
IDT entries
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> The asm isn't exactly beautiful,
>
> Delightful euphemism :)
>
>> but I think that fully refactoring
>> it can wait.
>
>> @@ -560,6 +560,14 @@ END(irq_entries_start)
>> .macro interrupt func
>> cld
>> ALLOC_PT_GPREGS_ON_STACK
>> +
>> + testb $3, CS(%rsp)
>> + jz 1f
>> + SWAPGS
>> + call switch_to_thread_stack
>> + SWAPGS
>
> I'm surely missing something subtle, but the register saving does really
> not care on which GS it is. This swapgs orgy looks odd.
You're mostly right. switch_to_thread_stack uses
PER_CPU_VAR(cpu_current_top_of_stack), which definitely cares about
which GS it's on, but there's still no legitimate reason for the
SWAPGS orgy. I'll fix it.
>
>> +1:
>> +
>> SAVE_C_REGS
>> SAVE_EXTRA_REGS
>> ENCODE_FRAME_POINTER
>> @@ -827,6 +835,33 @@ apicinterrupt IRQ_WORK_VECTOR irq_work_interrupt smp_irq_work_interrupt
>> */
>> #define CPU_TSS_IST(x) PER_CPU_VAR(cpu_tss) + (TSS_ist + ((x) - 1) * 8)
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Switch to the thread stack. This is called with the IRET frame and
>> + * orig_ax in pt_regs and the rest of pt_regs allocated, but with all GPRs
>> + * in the CPU registers.
>
> That took several attempts to grok why you left ALLOC_PT_GPRES_ON_STACK in
> place in the interrupts macro above.
>
> In theory it would be sufficient to push %rdi on the entry stack and
> operate from there, but it spares only the 'addq %rsp'. Not worth the
> trouble of dealing with different register offsets.
Hrm. There wasn't actually a good reason for that. I got rid of it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists