[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YS3t/s9nojyCn9ev@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 10:53:18 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/32: Add support for out-of-line static calls
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 08:05:21AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> +#define ARCH_DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL_TRAMP(name) \
> + asm(".pushsection .text, \"ax\" \n" \
> + ".align 4 \n" \
> + ".globl " STATIC_CALL_TRAMP_STR(name) " \n" \
> + STATIC_CALL_TRAMP_STR(name) ": \n" \
> + " blr \n" \
> + " nop \n" \
> + " nop \n" \
> + " nop \n" \
> + ".type " STATIC_CALL_TRAMP_STR(name) ", @function \n" \
> + ".size " STATIC_CALL_TRAMP_STR(name) ", . - " STATIC_CALL_TRAMP_STR(name) " \n" \
> + ".popsection \n")
> +static int patch_trampoline_32(u32 *addr, unsigned long target)
> +{
> + int err;
> +
> + err = patch_instruction(addr++, ppc_inst(PPC_RAW_LIS(_R12, PPC_HA(target))));
> + err |= patch_instruction(addr++, ppc_inst(PPC_RAW_ADDI(_R12, _R12, PPC_LO(target))));
> + err |= patch_instruction(addr++, ppc_inst(PPC_RAW_MTCTR(_R12)));
> + err |= patch_instruction(addr, ppc_inst(PPC_RAW_BCTR()));
> +
> + return err;
> +}
There can be concurrent execution and modification; the above doesn't
look safe in that regard. What happens if you've say, done the first
two, but not the latter two and execution happens (on a different
CPU or through IRQ context, etc..)?
> +void arch_static_call_transform(void *site, void *tramp, void *func, bool tail)
> +{
> + int err;
> + unsigned long target = (long)func;
> +
> + if (!tramp)
> + return;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&text_mutex);
> +
> + if (!func)
> + err = patch_instruction(tramp, ppc_inst(PPC_RAW_BLR()));
> + else if (is_offset_in_branch_range((long)target - (long)tramp))
> + err = patch_branch(tramp, target, 0);
These two are single instruction modifications and I'm assuming the
hardware is sane enough that execution sees either the old or the new
instruction. So this should work.
> + else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC32))
> + err = patch_trampoline_32(tramp, target);
> + else
> + BUILD_BUG();
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&text_mutex);
> +
> + if (err)
> + panic("%s: patching failed %pS at %pS\n", __func__, func, tramp);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(arch_static_call_transform);
One possible solution that we explored on ARM64, was having the
trampoline be in 2 slots:
b 1f
1: blr
nop
nop
nop
2: blr
nop
nop
nop
Where initially the first slot is active (per "b 1f"), then you write
the second slot, and as a final act, re-write the initial branch to
point to slot 2.
Then you execute synchronize_rcu_tasks() under your text mutex
(careful!) to ensure all users of your slot1 are gone and the next
modification repeats the whole thing, except for using slot1 etc..
Eventually I think Ard came up with the latest ARM64 proposal which puts
a literal in a RO section (could be the text section I suppose) and
loads and branches to that.
Anyway, the thing is, you can really only modify a single instruction at
the time and need to ensure concurrent execution is correct.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists