public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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