From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pl0-f66.google.com ([209.85.160.66]:36489 "EHLO
        mail-pl0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751998AbeBVDxZ (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:53:25 -0500
Received: by mail-pl0-f66.google.com with SMTP id v3so2213448plg.3
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 19:53:24 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1519271602.55655.50.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf, x64: implement retpoline for tail call
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, ast@kernel.org,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 19:53:22 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20180222034325.lecpbghrrmxy2ilt@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
References: <20180222000507.3374-1-daniel@iogearbox.net>
         <1519268642.55655.46.camel@gmail.com>
         <20180222034325.lecpbghrrmxy2ilt@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, 2018-02-21 at 19:43 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 07:04:02PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-02-22 at 01:05 +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > +/* Instead of plain jmp %rax, we emit a retpoline to control
> > > + * speculative execution for the indirect branch.
> > > + */
> > > +static void emit_retpoline_rax_trampoline(u8 **pprog)
> > > +{
> > > +	u8 *prog = *pprog;
> > > +	int cnt = 0;
> > > +
> > > +	EMIT1_off32(0xE8, 7);	 /* callq <set_up_target> */
> > > +	/* capture_spec: */
> > > +	EMIT2(0xF3, 0x90);	 /* pause */
> > > +	EMIT3(0x0F, 0xAE, 0xE8); /* lfence */
> > > +	EMIT2(0xEB, 0xF9);	 /* jmp <capture_spec> */
> > > +	/* set_up_target: */
> > > +	EMIT4(0x48, 0x89, 0x04, 0x24); /* mov %rax,(%rsp) */
> > > +	EMIT1(0xC3);		 /* retq */
> > > +
> > > +	BUILD_BUG_ON(cnt != RETPOLINE_SIZE);
> > > +	*pprog = prog;
> > 
> > You might define the actual code sequence (and length) in 
> > arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
> > 
> > If we need to adjust code sequences for RETPOLINE, then we wont
> > forget/miss that arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c had it hard-coded.
> 
> like adding a comment to asm/nospec-branch.h that says
> "dont forget to adjust bpf_jit_comp.c" ?
> but clang/gcc generate slightly different sequences for
> retpoline anyway, so even if '.macro RETPOLINE_JMP' in
> nospec-branch.h changes it doesn't mean that x64 jit has to change.
> So what kinda comment there would make sense?

I was thinking of something very explicit :

/* byte sequence for following assembly code used by eBPF
   call ...
   ...
   retq
*/
#define RETPOLINE_RAX_DIRECT_FOR_EBPF                         \
       EMIT1_off32(0xE8, 7);    /* callq <set_up_target> */   \
       /* capture_spec: */                                    \
       EMIT2(0xF3, 0x90);       /* pause */                   \
       EMIT3(0x0F, 0xAE, 0xE8); /* lfence */                  \
       EMIT2(0xEB, 0xF9);       /* jmp <capture_spec> */      \
       /* set_up_target: */                                   \
       EMIT4(0x48, 0x89, 0x04, 0x24); /* mov %rax,(%rsp) */   \
       EMIT1(0xC3);             /* retq */                    \

Might be simply byte encoded, (array of 17 bytes)

Well, something like that anyway...