From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: bp@alien8.de, david.kaplan@amd.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] x86: Clean up default rethunk warning
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 10:33:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241007173345.yokak3mlnqpsuxty@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241007083844.119369498@infradead.org>
On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 10:32:12AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Replace the funny __warn_thunk thing with a more regular
> WARN_ON_ONCE(), and simplify the ifdeffery.
>
> Notably this avoids RET from having recursive RETs (once from the
> thunk and once from the C function) -- recursive RET makes my head
> hurt for no good reason.
This could use an explanation for why the ifdefs can be removed and why
the alternative can be removed.
> +#define WARN_ONCE \
> + 1: ALTERNATIVE "", "ud2", X86_FEATURE_ALWAYS ; \
> + ASM_BUGTABLE_FLAGS(1b, 0, 0, BUGFLAG_WARNING | BUGFLAG_ONCE) ; \
> + REACHABLE
Can we not use __FILE__ and __LINE__ here? Also why not put this in
asm/bug.h?
> SYM_CODE_START(__x86_return_thunk)
> UNWIND_HINT_FUNC
> ANNOTATE_NOENDBR
> -#if defined(CONFIG_MITIGATION_UNRET_ENTRY) || \
> - defined(CONFIG_MITIGATION_SRSO) || \
> - defined(CONFIG_MITIGATION_CALL_DEPTH_TRACKING)
> - ALTERNATIVE __stringify(ANNOTATE_UNRET_SAFE; ret), \
> - "jmp warn_thunk_thunk", X86_FEATURE_ALWAYS
> -#else
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> + WARN_ONCE
> +#endif
Isn't this return thunk used before apply_returns()? How does that not
trigger the warning?
--
Josh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-07 17:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-07 8:32 [RFC][PATCH 0/2] x86: ASM based __bug_table and rethunks Peter Zijlstra
2024-10-07 8:32 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/2] x86: Provide assembly __bug_table helpers Peter Zijlstra
2024-10-07 17:21 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2024-10-23 11:22 ` Borislav Petkov
2024-10-07 8:32 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/2] x86: Clean up default rethunk warning Peter Zijlstra
2024-10-07 17:33 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
2024-10-08 7:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-10-08 16:45 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2024-10-09 7:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-11-04 11:47 ` Borislav Petkov
2024-11-04 14:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-11-04 14:39 ` Borislav Petkov
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=20241007173345.yokak3mlnqpsuxty@treble \
--to=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=david.kaplan@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--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