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]

Message-ID: <20181129142739.7a48c078@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:27:39 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.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, 29 Nov 2018 13:22:11 -0600
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 02:16:48PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > and honestly, the way "static_call()" works now, can you guarantee
> > > that the call-site doesn't end up doing that, and calling the
> > > trampoline function for two different static calls from one indirect
> > > call?
> > > 
> > > See what I'm talking about? Saying "callers are wrapped in macros"
> > > doesn't actually protect you from the compiler doing things like that.
> > > 
> > > In contrast, if the call was wrapped in an inline asm, we'd *know* the
> > > compiler couldn't turn a "call wrapper(%rip)" into anything else.  
> > 
> > But then we need to implement all numbers of parameters.  
> 
> I actually have an old unfinished patch which (ab)used C macros to
> detect the number of parameters and then setup the asm constraints
> accordingly.  At the time, the goal was to optimize the BUG code.
> 
> I had wanted to avoid this kind of approach for static calls, because
> "ugh", but now it's starting to look much more appealing.
> 
> Behold:
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h
> index aa6b2023d8f8..d63e9240da77 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h
> @@ -32,10 +32,59 @@
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE
>  
> -#define _BUG_FLAGS(ins, flags)						\
> +#define __BUG_ARGS_0(ins, ...) \
> +({\
> +	asm volatile("1:\t" ins "\n"); \
> +})
> +#define __BUG_ARGS_1(ins, ...) \
> +({\
> +	asm volatile("1:\t" ins "\n" \
> +		     : : "D" (ARG1(__VA_ARGS__))); \
> +})
> +#define __BUG_ARGS_2(ins, ...) \
> +({\
> +	asm volatile("1:\t" ins "\n" \
> +		     : : "D" (ARG1(__VA_ARGS__)), \
> +			 "S" (ARG2(__VA_ARGS__))); \
> +})
> +#define __BUG_ARGS_3(ins, ...) \
> +({\
> +	asm volatile("1:\t" ins "\n" \
> +		     : : "D" (ARG1(__VA_ARGS__)), \
> +			 "S" (ARG2(__VA_ARGS__)), \
> +			 "d" (ARG3(__VA_ARGS__))); \
> +})
> +#define __BUG_ARGS_4(ins, ...) \
> +({\
> +	asm volatile("1:\t" ins "\n" \
> +		     : : "D" (ARG1(__VA_ARGS__)), \
> +			 "S" (ARG2(__VA_ARGS__)), \
> +			 "d" (ARG3(__VA_ARGS__)), \
> +			 "c" (ARG4(__VA_ARGS__))); \
> +})
> +#define __BUG_ARGS_5(ins, ...) \
> +({\
> +	register u64 __r8 asm("r8") = (u64)ARG5(__VA_ARGS__); \
> +	asm volatile("1:\t" ins "\n" \
> +		     : : "D" (ARG1(__VA_ARGS__)), \
> +			 "S" (ARG2(__VA_ARGS__)), \
> +			 "d" (ARG3(__VA_ARGS__)), \
> +			 "c" (ARG4(__VA_ARGS__)), \
> +			 "r" (__r8)); \
> +})
> +#define __BUG_ARGS_6 foo
> +#define __BUG_ARGS_7 foo
> +#define __BUG_ARGS_8 foo
> +#define __BUG_ARGS_9 foo
> +


There exist tracepoints with 13 arguments.

-- Steve