From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:08:59 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 2/5] arm64: alternative: Allow immediate branch as alternative instruction In-Reply-To: <1427452942.2658.3.camel@linaro.org> 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> <1427452942.2658.3.camel@linaro.org> Message-ID: <55153A4B.9020204@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Tixy, On 27/03/15 10:42, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > 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? You're perfectly right, and you've actually uncovered a bug: if we have CONFIG_DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX or CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA, we'd end up trying to patch the read-only mapping, with disastrous results, aarch64_insn_write does the right thing, so we might as well use that. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...