From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tixy@linaro.org (Jon Medhurst (Tixy)) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:42:22 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 2/5] arm64: alternative: Allow immediate branch as alternative instruction In-Reply-To: <20150326221955.4b8fe6f0@arm.com> References: <1426773576-14062-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <1426773576-14062-3-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <20150326220323.GA23836@arm.com> <20150326221955.4b8fe6f0@arm.com> Message-ID: <1427452942.2658.3.camel@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 22:19 +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:03:23 +0000 > Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 01:59:33PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > Since all immediate branches are PC-relative on Aarch64, these > > > instructions cannot be used as an alternative with the simplistic > > > approach we currently have (the immediate has been computed from > > > the .altinstr_replacement section, and end-up being completely off > > > if we insert it directly). > > > > > > This patch handles the b and bl instructions in a different way, > > > using the insn framework to recompute the immediate, and generate > > > the right displacement. > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara > > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier > > > --- > > > arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > > 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > [...] > > > > > static int __apply_alternatives(void *alt_region) > > > { > > > struct alt_instr *alt; > > > @@ -40,16 +83,24 @@ static int __apply_alternatives(void *alt_region) > > > u8 *origptr, *replptr; > > > > > > for (alt = region->begin; alt < region->end; alt++) { > > > + u32 insn; > > > + int i; > > > + > > > if (!cpus_have_cap(alt->cpufeature)) > > > continue; > > > > > > - BUG_ON(alt->alt_len > alt->orig_len); > > > + BUG_ON(alt->alt_len != alt->orig_len); > > > > > > pr_info_once("patching kernel code\n"); > > > > > > origptr = (u8 *)&alt->orig_offset + alt->orig_offset; > > > replptr = (u8 *)&alt->alt_offset + alt->alt_offset; > > > - memcpy(origptr, replptr, alt->alt_len); > > > + > > > + for (i = 0; i < alt->alt_len; i += sizeof(insn)) { > > > + insn = get_alt_insn(origptr + i, replptr + i); > > > + *(u32 *)(origptr + i) = insn; > > > > My brain's not firing on all cylinders right now, but do you need a > > cpu_to_le32 here? > > I'm not 100% awake myself (probably some acute form of firmwaritis), > but I suspect you're quite right (get_alt_insn calls aarch64_insn_read, > which does a le32_to_cpu). Obviously, we need to revert the conversion > when writing the instruction back. Isn't aarch64_insn_write the inverse of aarch64_insn_read and more correct than using cpu_to_le32? -- Tixy