linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] powerpc/irq: inline call_do_irq() and call_do

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: <20191125142556.GU9491@gate.crashing.org>
Date:   Mon, 25 Nov 2019 08:25:56 -0600
From:   Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] powerpc/irq: inline call_do_irq() and call_do_softirq()

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 09:32:23PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org> writes:
> >> > +static inline void call_do_irq(struct pt_regs *regs, void *sp)
> >> > +{
> >> > +	register unsigned long r3 asm("r3") = (unsigned long)regs;
> >> > +
> >> > +	/* Temporarily switch r1 to sp, call __do_irq() then restore r1 */
> >> > +	asm volatile(
> >> > +		"	"PPC_STLU"	1, %2(%1);\n"
> >> > +		"	mr		1, %1;\n"
> >> > +		"	bl		%3;\n"
> >> > +		"	"PPC_LL"	1, 0(1);\n" :
> >> > +		"+r"(r3) :
> >> > +		"b"(sp), "i"(THREAD_SIZE - STACK_FRAME_OVERHEAD), "i"(__do_irq) :
> >> > +		"lr", "xer", "ctr", "memory", "cr0", "cr1", "cr5", "cr6", "cr7",
> >> > +		"r0", "r2", "r4", "r5", "r6", "r7", "r8", "r9", "r10", "r11", "r12");
> >> > +}
> >> 
> >> If we add a nop after the bl, so the linker could insert a TOC restore,
> >> then I don't think there's any circumstance under which we expect this
> >> to actually clobber r2, is there?
> >
> > That is mostly correct.
> 
> That's the standard I aspire to :P
> 
> > If call_do_irq was a no-inline function, there would not be problems.
> >
> > What TOC does __do_irq require in r2 on entry, and what will be there
> > when it returns?
> 
> The kernel TOC, and also the kernel TOC, unless something's gone wrong
> or I'm missing something.

If that is the case, we can just do the bl, no nop at all?  And that works
for all of our ABIs.

If we can be certain that we have the kernel TOC in r2 on entry to
call_do_irq, that is!  (Or it establishes it itself).


Segher