Building the Linux kernel with Clang and LLVM
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 --]

  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