[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YUn1ZySphVBzaBfg@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 17:08:23 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: implement support for static call trampolines
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 04:44:56PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 09:10, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 01:32:35AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > > +#define __ARCH_DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_TRAMP(name, target) \
> > > + asm(" .pushsection .static_call.text, \"ax\" \n" \
> > > + " .align 3 \n" \
> > > + " .globl " STATIC_CALL_TRAMP_STR(name) " \n" \
> > > + STATIC_CALL_TRAMP_STR(name) ": \n" \
> > > + " hint 34 /* BTI C */ \n" \
> > > + " adrp x16, 1f \n" \
> > > + " ldr x16, [x16, :lo12:1f] \n" \
> > > + " cbz x16, 0f \n" \
> > > + " br x16 \n" \
> > > + "0: ret \n" \
> > > + " .popsection \n" \
> > > + " .pushsection .rodata, \"a\" \n" \
> > > + " .align 3 \n" \
> > > + "1: .quad " target " \n" \
> > > + " .popsection \n")
> >
> > So I like what Christophe did for PPC32:
> >
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/6ec2a7865ed6a5ec54ab46d026785bafe1d837ea.1630484892.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu
> >
> > Where he starts with an unconditional jmp and uses that IFF the offset
> > fits and only does the data load when it doesn't. Ard, woulnd't that
> > also make sense on ARM64? I'm thinking most in-kernel function pointers
> > would actually fit, it's just the module muck that gets to have too
> > large pointers, no?
> >
>
> Yeah, I'd have to page that back in. But it seems like the following
>
> bti c
> <branch>
> adrp x16, <literal>
> ldr x16, [x16, ...]
> br x16
>
> with <branch> either set to 'b target' for the near targets, 'ret' for
> the NULL target, and 'nop' for the far targets should work, and the
> architecture permits patching branches into NOPs and vice versa
> without special synchronization. But I must be missing something here,
> or why did we have that long discussion before?
So the fundamental contraint is that we can only modify a single
instruction at the time and need to consider concurrent execution.
I think the first round of discussions was around getting the normal arm
pattern of constructing a long pointer 'working'. My initial suggestion
was to have 2 slots for that, then you came up with this data load
thing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists