Re: [PATCH v3] selftests/x86: Fix sysret_rip assertion failure on FRED systems

["Lai, Yi" <yi1.lai@intel.com>]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 01:33:15PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 03:06:05PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2026, at 2:44 AM, Yi Lai wrote:
> > > The existing 'sysret_rip' selftest asserts that 'regs->r11 ==
> > > regs->flags'. This check relies on the behavior of the SYSCALL
> > > instruction on legacy x86_64, which saves 'RFLAGS' into 'R11'.
> > >
> > > However, on systems with FRED (Flexible Return and Event Delivery)
> > > enabled, instead of using registers, all state is saved onto the stack.
> > > Consequently, 'R11' retains its userspace value, causing the assertion
> > > to fail.
> > >
> > > Fix this by detecting if FRED is enabled and skipping the register
> > > assertion in that case. The detection is done by checking if the RPL
> > > bits of the GS selector are preserved after a hardware exception.
> > > IDT (via IRET) clears the RPL bits of NULL selectors, while FRED (via
> > > ERETU) preserves them.
> > >
> > 
> > I don't really like this.  I think we have two credible choices:
> > 
> > 1. Define the Linux ABI to be that, on FRED systems, SYSCALL preserves
> > R11 and RCX on entry and exit.  And update the test to actually test
> > this.
> > 
> > 2. Define the Linux ABI to be what it has been for quite a few years:
> > SYSCALL entry copies RFLAGS to R11 and RIP to RCX and SYSCALL exit
> > preserves all registers.
> > 
> > I'm in favor of #2.  People love making new programming languages and
> > runtimes and inline asm and, these days, vibe coded crap.  And it's
> > *easier* to emit a SYSCALL and forget to tell the compiler / code
> > generator that RCX and R11 are clobbered than it is to remember that
> > they're clobbered.  And it's easy to test on FRED (well, not really,
> > but it hopefully will be some day) and it's easy to publish one's
> > code, and then everyone is a bit screwed when the resulting program
> > crashes sometimes on non-FRED systems.  And it will be miserable to
> > debug.
> > 
> > (It's *really* *really* easy to screw this up in a way that sort of
> > works even on non-FRED: RCX and R11 are usually clobbered across
> > function calls, so one can get into a situation in which one's
> > generated code usually doesn't require that SYSCALL preserve one of
> > these registers until an inlining decision changes or some code gets
> > reordered, and then it will start failing.  And making the failure
> > depend on hardware details is just nasty.
> > 
> > So I think we should add the ~2 lines of code to fix the SYSCALL entry
> > on FRED to match non-FRED.
> 
> Yes; I'm afraid I have to concur. Preserving the clobber on entry for
> FRED systems is by far the safest choice. 
> 
> Aside from this selftest, fancy debuggers and anything that can transfer
> userspace state between machines might be 'surprised'.

Thanks Andy and Peter.

Indeed, making the selftest branch on FRED vs. non-FRED behavior
is not a good practice. The selftest should validate ABI consistency.

I agree with Andy's option #2, so this should be fixed in the FRED
syscall entry implementation.

Li Xin, does this direction look right to you? I can assit with
validation and keep the selftest aligned with the agreed ABI.

Regards,
Yi Lai