[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200407135953.GC20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 15:59:53 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
jthierry@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 9/9] x86/speculation: Remove all
ANNOTATE_NOSPEC_ALTERNATIVE directives
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 03:52:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 09:31:42AM +0200, Alexandre Chartre wrote:
>
> > - ANNOTATE_NOSPEC_ALTERNATIVE
> > ALTERNATIVE_2 __stringify(ANNOTATE_RETPOLINE_SAFE; jmp *\reg), \
> > __stringify(RETPOLINE_JMP \reg), X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE, \
> > __stringify(lfence; ANNOTATE_RETPOLINE_SAFE; jmp *\reg), X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE_AMD
>
> Possibly we can write this like:
.macro OOL_RETPOLINE_JMP reg:req
SYM_FUNC_START(__x86_retpoline_jmp_\reg)
CFI_STARTPROC
RETPOLINE_JMP \reg
CFI_ENDPROC
SYM_FUNC_END(__x86_retpoline_jmp_\reg)
.endm
> ALTERNATIVE("", "lfence", X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE_AMD);
> ALTERNATIVE("jmp *\reg", "jmp __x86_retpoline_jmp_\reg", X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE);
>
> With an out-of-line copy of the retpoline, just like the THUNKs the
> compiler uses, except of course, it can't be those, because we actually
> want to use the alternative to implement those.
>
> By moving the retpoline magic out-of-line we ensure it has a unique
> address and the ORC stuff should work.
>
> I'm just not sure what to do about the RETPOLINE_CALL variant.
Duh, something like so:
ALTERNATIVE("", "lfence", X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE_AMD);
ALTERNATIVE("call *\reg", "call __x86_retpoline_jmp_\reg", X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists