lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86/alternative: Optimize single-byte NOPs at an arbitrary position
On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 11:21:25PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
>
> Up until now the assumption was that an alternative patching site would
> have some instructions at the beginning and trailing single-byte NOPs
> (0x90) padding. Therefore, the patching machinery would go and optimize
> those single-byte NOPs into longer ones.
>
> However, this assumption is broken on 32-bit when code like
> hv_do_hypercall() in hyperv_init() would use the ratpoline speculation
> killer CALL_NOSPEC. The 32-bit version of that macro would align certain
> insns to 16 bytes, leading to the compiler issuing a one or more
> single-byte NOPs, depending on the holes it needs to fill for alignment.

Who again insisted that wouldn't happen? :-)

> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c b/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
> index 6974b5174495..7baf13b11952 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
> @@ -182,42 +182,68 @@ recompute_jump(struct alt_instr *a, u8 *orig_insn, u8 *repl_insn, u8 *insn_buff)
> n_dspl, (unsigned long)orig_insn + n_dspl + repl_len);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * @instr: instruction byte stream
> + * @instrlen: length of the above
> + * @off: offset within @instr where the first NOP has been detected
> + */

That's almost a proper comment, might as well finish it

/*
* optimize_nops_range() - Optimize a sequence of single byte NOPs (0x90)
* @instr: instruction byte stream
* @instrlen: length of the above
* @off: offset within @instr where the first NOP has been detected
*
* Return: number of NOPs found (and replaced)
*/
> +static __always_inline int optimize_nops_range(u8 *instr, u8 instrlen, int off)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int i = off, nnops;
> +
> + while (i < instrlen) {
> + if (instr[i] != 0x90)
> + break;
> +
> + i++;
> + }

for (; i < instrlen && instr[i] == 0x90; i++)
;

perhaps? (possibly too dense, up to you)

> +
> + nnops = i - off;
> +
> + if (nnops <= 1)
> + return nnops;

!nnops would be an error, no?

> +
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> + add_nops(instr + off, nnops);
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
> +
> + DUMP_BYTES(instr, instrlen, "%px: [%d:%d) optimized NOPs: ",
> + instr, off, i);
> +
> + return nnops;
> +}
> +
> +

We really needs that extra line?

> /*
> * "noinline" to cause control flow change and thus invalidate I$ and
> * cause refetch after modification.
> */
> static void __init_or_module noinline optimize_nops(struct alt_instr *a, u8 *instr)
> {
> struct insn insn;
> + int i = 0;
>
> /*
> + * Jump over the non-NOP insns and optimize single-byte NOPs into bigger
> + * ones.
> */
> for (;;) {
> if (insn_decode_kernel(&insn, &instr[i]))
> return;
>
> + /*
> + * See if this and any potentially following NOPs can be
> + * optimized.
> + */
> if (insn.length == 1 && insn.opcode.bytes[0] == 0x90)
> + i += optimize_nops_range(instr, a->instrlen, i);
> + else
> + i += insn.length;
>
> + if (i >= a->instrlen)
> return;
> }
> }

Anyway, irrespective of nits:

Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-02 10:16    [W:0.481 / U:0.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site