[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220318180225.GF14330@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2022 19:02:25 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, seanjc@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] KVM: x86: allow defining return-0 static calls
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 06:47:32PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 06:28:37PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Related to this, I don't see anything in arch/x86/kernel/static_call.c that
> > > limits this code to x86-64:
> > >
> > > if (func == &__static_call_return0) {
> > > emulate = code;
> > > code = &xor5rax;
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > On 32-bit, it will be patched as "dec ax; xor eax, eax" or something like
> > > that. Fortunately it doesn't corrupt any callee-save register but it is not
> > > just a bit funky, it's also not a single instruction.
> >
> > Urggghh.. that's fairly yuck. So there's two options I suppose:
> >
> > 0x66, 0x66, 0x66, 0x31, 0xc0
>
> Argh, that turns into: xorw %ax, %ax.
>
> Let me see if there's another option.
Amazingly:
0x2e, 0x2e, 0x2e, 0x31, 0xc0
seems to actually work.. I've build and ran and decoded the below on
32bit and 64bit (arguably on the same 64bit host).
---
#include <stdio.h>
long zero(void)
{
long z = -1L;
asm (".byte 0x2e, 0x2e, 0x2e, 0x31, 0xc0" : "=a" (z) );
return z;
}
void main(void)
{
printf("%ld\n", zero());
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists