linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] x86: major paravirt cleanup

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, 16 Dec 2020 09:40:59 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, luto@...nel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        Deep Shah <sdeep@...are.com>,
        "VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] x86: major paravirt cleanup

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 06:38:02PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 03:54:08PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > The problem is that a single instance of unwind information (ORC) must
> > capture and correctly unwind all alternatives. Since the trivially
> > correct mandate is out, implement the straight forward brute-force
> > approach:
> > 
> >  1) generate CFI information for each alternative
> > 
> >  2) unwind every alternative with the merge-sort of the previously
> >     generated CFI information -- O(n^2)
> > 
> >  3) for any possible conflict: yell.
> > 
> >  4) Generate ORC with merge-sort
> > 
> > Specifically for 3 there are two possible classes of conflicts:
> > 
> >  - the merge-sort itself could find conflicting CFI for the same
> >    offset.
> > 
> >  - the unwind can fail with the merged CFI.
> 
> So much algorithm.

:-)

It's not really hard, but it has a few pesky details (as always).

> Could we make it easier by caching the shared
> per-alt-group CFI state somewhere along the way?

Yes, but when I tried it grew the code required. Runtime costs would be
less, but I figured that since alternatives are typically few and small,
that wasn't a real consideration.

That is, it would basically cache the results of find_alt_unwind(), but
you still need find_alt_unwind() to generate that data, and so you gain
the code for filling and using the extra data structure.

Yes, computing it 3 times is naf, but meh.

> [ 'offset' is a byte offset from the beginning of the group.  It could
>   be calculated based on 'orig_insn' or 'orig_insn->alts', depending on
>   whether 'insn' is an original or a replacement. ]

That's exactly what it already does ofcourse ;-)

> If the array entry is NULL, just update it with a pointer to the CFI.
> If it's not NULL, make sure it matches the existing CFI, and WARN if it
> doesn't.
> 
> Also, with this data structure, the ORC generation should also be a lot
> more straightforward, just ignore the NULL entries.

Yeah, I suppose it gets rid of the memcmp-prev thing.

> Thoughts?  This is all theoretical of course, I could try to do a patch
> tomorrow.

No real objection, I just didn't do it because 1) it works, and 2) even
moar lines.