From: "Jürgen Groß" <jgross@suse.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
llvm@lists.linux.dev, xin@zytor.com,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers+lkml@gmail.com>,
Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com>,
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/12] x86/msr: Use the alternatives mechanism for WRMSR
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 13:16:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <293e8808-e239-412e-90bc-d13f671c6061@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251001105058.GP3419281@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1886 bytes --]
On 01.10.25 12:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 10:49:31AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>
>> Thinking more about that I believe there are additional problems:
>>
>> Having overlapping alternatives not starting at the same address will result
>> in problems with length padding of the outer alternative in case the inner
>> one starting later is extending past the end of the outer one. This might be
>> possible to handle, but it will be tedious.
>
> Yes, this must not happen.
>
>> Using your idea with pv_ops could result in the inner alternative not being
>> at the start of the outer alternative AND being not the initial code. This
>> would result in patching in the .altinstructions area instead of the normal
>> .text site, resulting in possible loss of a patching action if the patched
>> area would have been used as a replacement before.
>
> Not quite, the nested alternative was in the orig_insn part. So it would
> result in patching the orig text twice, once from the inner (which comes
> first in the patch list) and then once again from the outer (which comes
> later).
Yes, but that was the native case only.
With pv_ops this would mean the original instruction would be the
paravirt-call, resulting in your construct becoming an inner nesting level.
>
>> So in my opinion allowing alternatives to nest without all inner levels
>> starting at the same location as the outermost level would be a receipt for
>> failure.
>
> Certainly tricky, no argument there.
>
>> I think I'll write another patch to BUG() in case such a situation is being
>> detected.
>
> Fair enough; we should not currently have any such cases. And going by
> my attempt to make it work, its going to be really tricky in any case.
>
> But please put on a comment on why, which explains the constraints.
Agreed.
Juergen
[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3743 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 495 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-01 11:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-30 7:03 [PATCH v2 00/12] x86/msr: Inline rdmsr/wrmsr instructions Juergen Gross
2025-09-30 7:03 ` [PATCH v2 09/12] x86/msr: Use the alternatives mechanism for WRMSR Juergen Gross
2025-09-30 8:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-30 8:46 ` Jürgen Groß
2025-09-30 8:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-30 12:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-30 15:42 ` Jürgen Groß
2025-10-01 6:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-10-01 7:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-10-03 14:23 ` Dave Hansen
2025-10-03 16:53 ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-10-01 8:49 ` Juergen Gross
2025-10-01 10:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-10-01 11:16 ` Jürgen Groß [this message]
2025-09-30 16:00 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-10-01 9:13 ` Jürgen Groß
2025-09-30 19:19 ` [PATCH v2 00/12] x86/msr: Inline rdmsr/wrmsr instructions H. Peter Anvin
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=293e8808-e239-412e-90bc-d13f671c6061@suse.com \
--to=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=justinstitt@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morbo@google.com \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=nick.desaulniers+lkml@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xin@zytor.com \
/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