From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86: CS limit checks
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:30:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <487F73AE.50509@siemens.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <487F51E1.9070102@bellard.org>
Fabrice Bellard wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Here is a proposal for adding code segment limit checks to x86. This
>> patch should not need the -seg-checks switch as its tests are mostly
>> performed during translation time. Moreover, I tried to confine the
>> small additional overhead in the TB lookup procedure to x86 and Sparc.
>>
>> Note that this patch depends on my debugging series, namely [1], as that
>> one reduces the x86-specific code passages for TB generation. Also note
>> that this patch is early and only lightly tested so far, not yet
>> intended for inclusion, but definitely for commenting on!
>
> Using more than 32 bits for cs_limit (and cs_base) in the TB is
> wasteful, so I strongly suggest to use a uint32_t type. In that case,
> cs_limit must be explicitely ignored in 64 bit code.
>
> @@ -172,6 +173,8 @@ static inline TranslationBlock *tb_find_
> flags = env->hflags;
> flags |= (env->eflags & (IOPL_MASK | TF_MASK | VM_MASK));
> cs_base = env->segs[R_CS].base;
> + if ((env->hflags & (HF_PE_MASK | HF_CS64_MASK)) == HF_PE_MASK)
> + cs_limit = env->segs[R_CS].limit;
> pc = cs_base + env->eip;
>
> This test should be suppressed for performance reasons.
Yes, the test should be moved to the translator code. This will also
allow to reduce the width of cs_base/limit.
>
> Generally speaking as I said in a private mail, I don't want an option
> -seg-checks: the segment limit and right checks must always be enabled,
> even if there is a small performance hit. The way to implement it is to
> store in the TB.flags for each segment whether the limit must be tested
> and whether the segment is RW.
Switching a segment selector is not yet a TB termination reason IIRC.
I'm not sure about the implication of such a change, e.g. if there are
relevant use case that have relaxed segment limits and attributes, but
perform a lot segment register reloads.
And then there is the open question how much performance can be gained
with compile-time optimization for those guests who do use segmentation.
The worst case is very roughly about 50% slowdown right now (/w vs. w/o
-seg-checks). As answered privately, some -no-seg-checks switch could
remain a useful optimization.
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-17 16:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-17 11:57 [Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH] x86: CS limit checks Jan Kiszka
2008-07-17 12:17 ` Paul Brook
2008-07-17 13:14 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-07-17 13:37 ` Paul Brook
2008-07-17 16:10 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-07-17 17:45 ` Paul Brook
2008-07-17 19:24 ` Fabrice Bellard
2008-07-17 21:30 ` [Qemu-devel] " Jan Kiszka
2008-07-17 14:06 ` [Qemu-devel] " Fabrice Bellard
2008-07-17 16:30 ` Jan Kiszka [this message]
2008-07-17 19:29 ` [Qemu-devel] " Fabrice Bellard
2008-07-17 21:25 ` Jan Kiszka
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=487F73AE.50509@siemens.com \
--to=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).