[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230816093917.GC980931@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 11:39:17 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, baron@...mai.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
ardb@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, christian@...cart.de,
song@...nel.org, mcgrof@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/static_call: Fix __static_call_fixup()
On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 05:10:32PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 01:08:09AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > bool __static_call_fixup(void *tramp, u8 op, void *dest)
> > {
> > + /*
> > + * Not all .return_sites are a static_call trampoline (most are not).
> > + * Check if the next 3 bytes are still kernel text, if not, then this
>
> s/3/7 ?
Right, so what I meant was the 3 bytes after the return, which is 5+3,
but yeah, that can be said better.
>
> > + * definitely is not a trampoline and we need not worry further.
> > + *
> > + * This avoids the memcmp() below tripping over pagefaults etc..
> > + */
> > + if (!kernel_text_address(tramp+7))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > if (memcmp(tramp+5, tramp_ud, 3)) {
> > /* Not a trampoline site, not our problem. */
> > return false;
>
> kernel_text_address() can be quite heavyweight to call in a loop during
> module loading. Maybe that doesn't matter much. But it would be a lot
> faster to only call kernel_text_address() if tramp+7 is on the next
> page.
Oh, right, in those few configs where it doesn't use the tree. Sure can
do.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists