[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211013210605.bz6l7o5xzik5ckga@treble>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 14:06:05 -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 9/9] bpf,x86: Respect X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE*
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 02:22:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Current BPF codegen doesn't respect X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE* flags and
> unconditionally emits a thunk call, this is sub-optimal and doesn't
> match the regular, compiler generated, code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
> arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> @@ -2123,14 +2123,18 @@ static int emit_fallback_jump(u8 **pprog
> int err = 0;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_RETPOLINE
> - /* Note that this assumes the the compiler uses external
> - * thunks for indirect calls. Both clang and GCC use the same
> - * naming convention for external thunks.
> - */
> - err = emit_jump(&prog, __x86_indirect_thunk_rdx, prog);
> -#else
> - EMIT2(0xFF, 0xE2); /* jmp rdx */
> + if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE)) {
> + if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE_AMD)) {
> + /* The AMD retpoline can be easily emitted inline. */
> + EMIT3(0x0F, 0xAE, 0xE8); /* lfence */
> + EMIT2(0xFF, 0xE2); /* jmp rdx */
> + } else {
> + /* Call the retpoline thunk */
> + err = emit_jump(&prog, __x86_indirect_thunk_rdx, prog);
> + }
> + } else
> #endif
> + EMIT2(0xFF, 0xE2); /* jmp rdx */
But the rest of eBPF JIT just emits retpolines unconditionally
regardless of feature, for example see RETPOLINE_RCX_BPF_JIT(). So I'm
thinking this should probably be consistent with that (or that with
this).
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists