[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YXa0uH0fA0P+dM8J@boxer>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 15:44:24 +0200
From: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/14] bpf,x86: Respect X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE*
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 08:22:35AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 4:33 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 04:42:12PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >
> > > Ahh. Right. It's potentially a different offset for every prog.
> > > Let's put it into struct jit_context then.
> >
> > Something like this...
>
> Yep. Looks nice and clean to me.
>
> > - poke->tailcall_bypass = image + (addr - poke_off - X86_PATCH_SIZE);
> > + poke->tailcall_bypass = ip + (prog - start);
> > poke->adj_off = X86_TAIL_CALL_OFFSET;
> > - poke->tailcall_target = image + (addr - X86_PATCH_SIZE);
> > + poke->tailcall_target = ip + ctx->tail_call_direct_label - X86_PATCH_SIZE;
>
> This part looks correct too, but this is Daniel's magic.
> He'll probably take a look next week when he comes back from PTO.
> I don't recall which test exercises this tailcall poking logic.
> It's only used with dynamic updates to prog_array.
> insmod test_bpf.ko and test_verifier won't go down this path.
Please run ./test_progs -t tailcalls from tools/testing/selftests/bpf and
make sure that all of the tests are passing in there, especially the
tailcall_bpf2bpf* subset.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists