From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86/kvm/emulate: Avoid RET for fastops
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 08:20:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231129072053.GA30650@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZWaV8H9e8ubhFgWJ@google.com>
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 05:37:52PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2023, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Inspired by the likes of ba5ca5e5e6a1 ("x86/retpoline: Don't clobber
> > RFLAGS during srso_safe_ret()") I had it on my TODO to look at this,
> > because the call-depth-tracking rethunk definitely also clobbers flags
> > and that's a ton harder to fix.
> >
> > Looking at this recently I noticed that there's really only one callsite
> > (twice, the testcc thing is basically separate from the rest of the
> > fastop stuff) and thus CALL+RET is totally silly, we can JMP+JMP.
> >
> > The below implements this, and aside from objtool going apeshit (it
> > fails to recognise the fastop JMP_NOSPEC as a jump-table and instead
> > classifies it as a tail-call), it actually builds and the asm looks
> > good sensible enough.
> >
> > I've not yet figured out how to test this stuff, but does something like
> > this look sane to you guys?
>
> Yes? The idea seems sound, but I haven't thought _that_ hard about whether or not
> there's any possible gotchas. I did a quick test and nothing exploded (and
> usually when this code breaks, it breaks spectacularly).
That's encouraging..
> > Given that rethunks are quite fat and slow, this could be sold as a
> > performance optimization I suppose.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
> > index f93e9b96927a..2cd3b5a46e7a 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
> > @@ -412,6 +412,17 @@ static inline void call_depth_return_thunk(void) {}
> > "call *%[thunk_target]\n", \
> > X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE_LFENCE)
> >
> > +# define JMP_NOSPEC \
> > + ALTERNATIVE_2( \
> > + ANNOTATE_RETPOLINE_SAFE \
> > + "jmp *%[thunk_target]\n", \
> > + "jmp __x86_indirect_thunk_%V[thunk_target]\n", \
> > + X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE, \
> > + "lfence;\n" \
> > + ANNOTATE_RETPOLINE_SAFE \
> > + "jmp *%[thunk_target]\n", \
> > + X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE_LFENCE)
>
> There needs a 32-bit version (eww) and a CONFIG_RETPOLINE=n version. :-/
I'll go make that happen. Thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-29 7:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-12 20:12 [RFC] x86/kvm/emulate: Avoid RET for fastops Peter Zijlstra
2023-11-29 1:37 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-11-29 7:20 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2023-11-29 15:04 ` 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=20231129072053.GA30650@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.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