[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <99a36eed-e4e5-60ec-0f88-a33d1842a0d6@maciej.szmigiero.name>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 19:50:11 +0100
From: "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>
To: Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@...gle.com>,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com,
isaku.yamahata@...el.com, sagis@...gle.com, afranji@...gle.com,
runanwang@...gle.com, shuah@...nel.org, drjones@...hat.com,
maz@...nel.org, bgardon@...gle.com, jmattson@...gle.com,
dmatlack@...gle.com, peterx@...hat.com, oupton@...gle.com,
ricarkol@...gle.com, yang.zhong@...el.com, wei.w.wang@...el.com,
xiaoyao.li@...el.com, pgonda@...gle.com, marcorr@...gle.com,
eesposit@...hat.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com, eric.auger@...hat.com,
wangyanan55@...wei.com, aaronlewis@...gle.com, vkuznets@...hat.com,
pshier@...gle.com, axelrasmussen@...gle.com,
zhenzhong.duan@...el.com, like.xu@...ux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 08/31] KVM: selftests: Require GCC to realign
stacks on function entry
On 23.01.2023 19:30, Erdem Aktas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 4:28 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2023, Ackerley Tng wrote:
>>> Some SSE instructions assume a 16-byte aligned stack, and GCC compiles
>>> assuming the stack is aligned:
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838. This combination
>>> results in a #GP in guests.
>>>
>>> Adding this compiler flag will generate an alternate prologue and
>>> epilogue to realign the runtime stack, which makes selftest code
>>> slower and bigger, but this is okay since we do not need selftest code
>>> to be extremely performant.
>>
>> Huh, I had completely forgotten that this is why SSE is problematic. I ran into
>> this with the base UPM selftests and just disabled SSE. /facepalm.
>>
>> We should figure out exactly what is causing a misaligned stack. As you've noted,
>> the x86-64 ABI requires a 16-byte aligned RSP. Unless I'm misreading vm_arch_vcpu_add(),
>> the starting stack should be page aligned, which means something is causing the
>> stack to become unaligned at runtime. I'd rather hunt down that something than
>> paper over it by having the compiler force realignment.
>
> Is not it due to the 32bit execution part of the guest code at boot
> time. Any push/pop of 32bit registers might make it a 16-byte
> unaligned stack.
32-bit stack needs to be 16-byte aligned, too (at function call boundaries) -
see [1] chapter 2.2.2 "The Stack Frame"
Thanks,
Maciej
[1]: https://www.uclibc.org/docs/psABI-i386.pdf
Powered by blists - more mailing lists