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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 27 Nov 2019 14:50:30 +0100
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     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()



Le 25/11/2019 à 15:25, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> 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).

So what do we do ? We just drop the "r2" clobber ?

Otherwise, to be on the safe side we can just save r2 in a local var 
before the bl and restore it after. I guess it won't collapse CPU time 
on a performant PPC64.

Christophe