[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190425092049.GB115378@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 11:20:49 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] x86/paravirt: Replace paravirt patch asm magic
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > I think these open-coded hexa versions are somewhat fragile as well, how
> > about putting these into a .S file and controlling the sections in an LTO
> > safe manner there?
> >
> > That will also allow us to write proper asm, and global labels can be
> > used to extract the patchlets and their length?
>
> While I'm not fan either; I think that will be worse still, because it
> splits the information over multiple files.
Yeah, so that's a drawback of the .S files.
> The advantage of this form is that it is clear how long the instructions
> are, which is important for the patching. These immediates have to be
> shorter than 5 bytes because they overwrite the CALL/JMP to the paravirt
> function.
>
> /me eyes .cpu_usergs_sysret64 and goes wtf..
I just posted a patch that adds an assert to detect too large patching
attempt: we'd silently ignore them before, which isn't healthy.
With the two patches I now like the .c version better.
Thomas, want me to organize all these changes, or do you want to?
1
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists