From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.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: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 09:25:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241008072502.GC14587@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241007173345.yokak3mlnqpsuxty@treble>
On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 10:33:45AM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> 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.
The alternative is in the WARN_ONCE now.
> > +#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?
Because for asm, __FILE__ is spelled like:
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE
.pushsection .rodata.str1.1, "aMS",@progbits,1
.LC0:
.string __FILE__
.popsection
#endif
1: ALTERNATIVE "", "ud2", X86_FEATURE_ALWAYS
ASM_BUGTABLE_FLAGS(1b, LC0b, __LINE__, BUGFLAG_WARNING | BUGFLAG_ONCE)
REACHABLE
And I didn't feel the whole thing was worth the trouble, if NULL bug
will only print the symbol name and that should be clear enough.
> Also why not put this in asm/bug.h?
Because the ALTERNATIVE..
> > 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?
You missed the ALTERNATIVE I squirreled away in the WARN thing :-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-08 7:25 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
2024-10-08 7:25 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
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=20241008072502.GC14587@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=david.kaplan@amd.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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