lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC v2 1/6] x86: introduce kernel restartable sequence
From
Date
> On Jan 3, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>> Ok… I’ll try to think about another solution. Just note that this is just
>> used as a hint to avoid unnecessary lookups. (IOW, nothing will break if the
>> prefix is used.)
>
> Are you sure actually?
>
> The empty prefix could mean 8bit register accesses.
>
>>> You're doing the equivalent of patching a private system call
>>> into your own kernel without working with upstream, don't do that.
>>
>> I don’t understand this comment though. Can you please explain?
>
> Instruction encoding = system call ABI
> Upstream = CPU vendors
>
> Early in Linux's history, naive Linux distribution vendors patched in their own
> private system calls without waiting for upstream to define an ABI, which caused
> endless compatibility problems. These days this is very frowned upon.
>
>>> Better to find some other solution to do the restart.
>>> How about simply using a per cpu variable? That should be cheaper
>>> anyways.
>>
>> The problem is that the per-cpu variable needs to be updated after the call
>> is executed, when we are already not in the context of the “injected” code.
>> I can increase it before the call, and decrease it after return - but this
>> can create (in theory) long periods in which the code is “unpatchable”,
>> increase the code size and slow performance.
>>
>> Anyhow, I’ll give more thought. Ideas are welcomed.
>
> Write the address of the instruction into the per cpu variable.

Thanks for the explanations. I don’t think it would work (e.g., IRQs). I can
avoid generalizing and just detect the "magic sequence” of the code, but let
me give it some more thought.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-03 23:53    [W:0.055 / U:1.020 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site