From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37041C433EF for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:44:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EC8F61050 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:44:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230176AbhJYLrH (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 07:47:07 -0400 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:37514 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229704AbhJYLrH (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 07:47:07 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10147"; a="228391476" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.87,180,1631602800"; d="scan'208";a="228391476" Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Oct 2021 04:44:44 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.87,180,1631602800"; d="scan'208";a="446195657" Received: from boxer.igk.intel.com (HELO boxer) ([10.102.20.173]) by orsmga006.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Oct 2021 04:44:42 -0700 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 15:44:24 +0200 From: Maciej Fijalkowski To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Josh Poimboeuf , X86 ML , Andrew Cooper , LKML , Nick Desaulniers , Daniel Borkmann , bpf , Andrii Nakryiko Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/14] bpf,x86: Respect X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE* Message-ID: References: <20211021000502.ltn5o6ji6offwzeg@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <20211021223719.GY174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20211021233852.gbkyl7wpunyyq4y5@treble> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 08:22:35AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 4:33 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 04:42:12PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > > > Ahh. Right. It's potentially a different offset for every prog. > > > Let's put it into struct jit_context then. > > > > Something like this... > > Yep. Looks nice and clean to me. > > > - poke->tailcall_bypass = image + (addr - poke_off - X86_PATCH_SIZE); > > + poke->tailcall_bypass = ip + (prog - start); > > poke->adj_off = X86_TAIL_CALL_OFFSET; > > - poke->tailcall_target = image + (addr - X86_PATCH_SIZE); > > + poke->tailcall_target = ip + ctx->tail_call_direct_label - X86_PATCH_SIZE; > > This part looks correct too, but this is Daniel's magic. > He'll probably take a look next week when he comes back from PTO. > I don't recall which test exercises this tailcall poking logic. > It's only used with dynamic updates to prog_array. > insmod test_bpf.ko and test_verifier won't go down this path. Please run ./test_progs -t tailcalls from tools/testing/selftests/bpf and make sure that all of the tests are passing in there, especially the tailcall_bpf2bpf* subset. Thanks!