[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211013203927.zbruy2ux7dug6ljk@treble>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 13:39:27 -0700
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] x86/alternative: Implement .retpoline_sites support
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 02:22:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +static int patch_retpoline(void *addr, struct insn *insn, u8 *bytes)
> +{
> + void (*target)(void);
> + int reg, i = 0;
> +
> + if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE))
> + return -1;
Better to do this check further up the call stack in apply_retpolines()
before looping through all the call sites?
> +
> + target = addr + insn->length + insn->immediate.value;
> + reg = (target - &__x86_indirect_thunk_rax) /
> + (&__x86_indirect_thunk_rcx - &__x86_indirect_thunk_rax);
> +
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(reg & ~0xf))
> + return -1;
It would be more robust and less magical to just have a basic lookup
table array which converts a thunk address to a reg. Then you can just
avoid all the safety checks because it's no longer insane ;-)
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists