From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: hpa@zytor.com
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
arjan@linux.intel.com, bp@alien8.de, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
richard.weinberger@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Implement __WARN using UD0
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:23:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170223152309.GF6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <69617B03-BF08-4C25-9A82-6F01ABAB48DE@zytor.com>
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 07:09:05AM -0800, hpa@zytor.com wrote:
> Well, it only matters if the instruction extends past a segment
> boundary or page. However, the CPU instruction decoder will consume a
> modrm for UD1, and so using just the two opcode bytes may cause a #PF
> or #GP when a #UD was intended.
It also matters if you want the decoded instruction stream to make
sense.
If for instance I use UD1 without the ModRM byte for WARN, objtool gets
mighty confused because the instruction stream doesn't decode properly.
objtool will also consume the extra byte and then the next instruction
is offset and decodes wrong and it stresses out.
Similarly, if you were to do objdump (and objdump were to actually
correctly decode UD1) then the resulting asm would make no sense.
The kernel will work 'fine', because even without ModRM it will #UD, and
the #UD handler will IP+=2 and all is well, but it becomes impossible to
actually decode the function..
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-23 15:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-23 13:28 [PATCH] x86: Implement __WARN using UD0 Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-23 14:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-23 14:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-23 15:09 ` hpa
2017-02-23 15:23 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2017-02-23 15:32 ` hpa
2017-02-23 16:03 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-02-23 14:12 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-02-23 14:17 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-02-23 14:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-23 14:14 ` Arjan van de Ven
2017-02-23 14:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-24 7:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-02-24 8:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-24 9:06 ` hpa
2017-02-24 9:11 ` hpa
2017-02-24 9:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-02-24 9:46 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-02-24 9:52 ` H. Peter Anvin
[not found] ` <21ac6e53-2fcd-52e9-e72d-9faf7da14d1e@zytor.com>
2017-02-24 10:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-25 10:38 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-02-25 17:55 ` hpa
2017-02-25 19:38 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-02-25 20:04 ` hpa
2017-02-25 20:29 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-02-24 11:16 ` [PATCH -v2] " Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-25 8:19 ` [RFC][PATCH] bug: Add _ONCE logic to report_bug() Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-25 9:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-02-25 9:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170223152309.GF6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=richard.weinberger@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox