linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

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]

Message-ID: <20190626104321.GC3463@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 26 Jun 2019 12:43:21 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shawn Landden <shawn@....icu>,
        clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 11:24:32AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> That is, would something like this:
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/jump_label.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/jump_label.h
> index 06c3cc22a058..1761b1e76ddc 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/jump_label.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/jump_label.h
> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ static __always_inline bool arch_static_branch(struct static_key *key, bool bran
>  		: :  "i" (key), "i" (branch) : : l_yes);
>  
>  	return false;
> -l_yes:
> +l_yes: __attribute__((cold));
>  	return true;
>  }
>  
> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static __always_inline bool arch_static_branch_jump(struct static_key *key, bool
>  		: :  "i" (key), "i" (branch) : : l_yes);
>  
>  	return false;
> -l_yes:
> +l_yes: __attribute__((hot));
>  	return true;
>  }
>  
> Help LLVM?

No, that's broken. What we do is the likely() and unlikely() hints in
static_branch_{,un}likely():

#define static_branch_likely(x)							\
({										\
	bool branch;								\
	if (__builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(*x), struct static_key_true))	\
		branch = !arch_static_branch(&(x)->key, true);			\
	else if (__builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(*x), struct static_key_false)) \
		branch = !arch_static_branch_jump(&(x)->key, true);		\
	else									\
		branch = ____wrong_branch_error();				\
	likely(branch);								\
})

#define static_branch_unlikely(x)						\
({										\
	bool branch;								\
	if (__builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(*x), struct static_key_true))	\
		branch = arch_static_branch_jump(&(x)->key, false);		\
	else if (__builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(*x), struct static_key_false)) \
		branch = arch_static_branch(&(x)->key, false);			\
	else									\
		branch = ____wrong_branch_error();				\
	unlikely(branch);							\
})

That should convey out-of-line vs in-line 'hint'. And clearly that's
broken for LLVM.