public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
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: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 17:37:52 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZWaV8H9e8ubhFgWJ@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231112201205.GB9987@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>

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).

> 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. :-/

  reply	other threads:[~2023-11-29  1:38 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 [this message]
2023-11-29  7:20   ` Peter Zijlstra
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=ZWaV8H9e8ubhFgWJ@google.com \
    --to=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --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