[PATCH 5.15 v2 0/3] Support static calls with LLVM-built kernels

[PATCH 5.15 v2 0/3] Support static calls with LLVM-built kernels

[Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo]

Otherwise, we see warnings like this:

[    0.000000][    T0] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[    0.000000][    T0] unexpected static_call insn opcode 0xf at kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
[    0.000000][    T0] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at arch/x86/kernel/static_call.c:88 __static_call_validate+0x68/0x70
[    0.000000][    T0] Modules linked in:
[    0.000000][    T0] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 5.15.151-00083-gf200c7260296 #68 fe3cb25cf78cb710722bb5acd1cadddd35172924
[    0.000000][    T0] RIP: 0010:__static_call_validate+0x68/0x70
[    0.000000][    T0] Code: 0f b6 4a 04 81 f1 c0 00 00 00 09 c1 74 cc 80 3d be 2c 02 02 00 75 c3 c6 05 b5 2c 02 02 01 48 c7 c7 38 4f c3 82 e8 e8 c8 09 00 <0f> 0b c3 00 00 cc cc 00 53 48 89 fb 48 63 15 31 71 06 02
e8 b0 b8
[    0.000000][    T0] RSP: 0000:ffffffff82e03e70 EFLAGS: 00010046 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000000
[    0.000000][    T0] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 0000000000000002
[    0.000000][    T0] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffffff82e03ce0 RDI: 0000000000000001
[    0.000000][    T0] RBP: 0000000000000001 R08: 00000000ffffffff R09: ffffffff82eaab70
[    0.000000][    T0] R10: ffffffff82e2e900 R11: 205d305420202020 R12: ffffffff82e51960
[    0.000000][    T0] R13: ffffffff81038987 R14: ffffffff81038987 R15: 0000000000000001
[    0.000000][    T0] FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffffffff83726000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
[    0.000000][    T0] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
[    0.000000][    T0] CR2: ffff888000014be8 CR3: 00000000037b2000 CR4: 00000000000000a0
[    0.000000][    T0] Call Trace:
[    0.000000][    T0]  <TASK>
[    0.000000][    T0]  ? __warn+0x75/0xe0
[    0.000000][    T0]  ? report_bug+0x81/0xe0
[    0.000000][    T0]  ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
[    0.000000][    T0]  ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
[    0.000000][    T0]  ? early_fixup_exception+0x44/0xa0
[    0.000000][    T0]  ? early_idt_handler_common+0x2f/0x40
[    0.000000][    T0]  ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
[    0.000000][    T0]  ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
[    0.000000][    T0]  ? __static_call_validate+0x68/0x70
[    0.000000][    T0]  ? arch_static_call_transform+0x5c/0x90
[    0.000000][    T0]  ? __static_call_init+0x1ec/0x230
[    0.000000][    T0]  ? static_call_init+0x32/0x70
[    0.000000][    T0]  ? setup_arch+0x36/0x4f0
[    0.000000][    T0]  ? start_kernel+0x67/0x400
[    0.000000][    T0]  ? secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xb1/0xbb
[    0.000000][    T0]  </TASK>
[    0.000000][    T0] ---[ end trace 8c8589c01f370686 ]---



Peter Zijlstra (3):
  x86/alternatives: Introduce int3_emulate_jcc()
  x86/alternatives: Teach text_poke_bp() to patch Jcc.d32 instructions
  x86/static_call: Add support for Jcc tail-calls

 arch/x86/include/asm/text-patching.h | 31 +++++++++++++++
 arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c        | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c       | 38 ++++---------------
 arch/x86/kernel/static_call.c        | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
 4 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)

-- 
2.34.1

[PATCH 5.15 v2 1/3] x86/alternatives: Introduce int3_emulate_jcc()

[Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo]

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>

commit db7adcfd1cec4e95155e37bc066fddab302c6340 upstream.

Move the kprobe Jcc emulation into int3_emulate_jcc() so it can be
used by more code -- specifically static_call() will need this.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230123210607.057678245@infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@igalia.com>
---
 arch/x86/include/asm/text-patching.h | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++
 arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c       | 38 ++++++----------------------
 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/text-patching.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/text-patching.h
index c6015b407461..7281ce64e99d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/text-patching.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/text-patching.h
@@ -181,6 +181,37 @@ void int3_emulate_ret(struct pt_regs *regs)
 	unsigned long ip = int3_emulate_pop(regs);
 	int3_emulate_jmp(regs, ip);
 }
+
+static __always_inline
+void int3_emulate_jcc(struct pt_regs *regs, u8 cc, unsigned long ip, unsigned long disp)
+{
+	static const unsigned long jcc_mask[6] = {
+		[0] = X86_EFLAGS_OF,
+		[1] = X86_EFLAGS_CF,
+		[2] = X86_EFLAGS_ZF,
+		[3] = X86_EFLAGS_CF | X86_EFLAGS_ZF,
+		[4] = X86_EFLAGS_SF,
+		[5] = X86_EFLAGS_PF,
+	};
+
+	bool invert = cc & 1;
+	bool match;
+
+	if (cc < 0xc) {
+		match = regs->flags & jcc_mask[cc >> 1];
+	} else {
+		match = ((regs->flags & X86_EFLAGS_SF) >> X86_EFLAGS_SF_BIT) ^
+			((regs->flags & X86_EFLAGS_OF) >> X86_EFLAGS_OF_BIT);
+		if (cc >= 0xe)
+			match = match || (regs->flags & X86_EFLAGS_ZF);
+	}
+
+	if ((match && !invert) || (!match && invert))
+		ip += disp;
+
+	int3_emulate_jmp(regs, ip);
+}
+
 #endif /* !CONFIG_UML_X86 */
 
 #endif /* _ASM_X86_TEXT_PATCHING_H */
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c
index 052ea7425c4d..893f040b97b7 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c
@@ -463,50 +463,26 @@ static void kprobe_emulate_call(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
 }
 NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(kprobe_emulate_call);
 
-static nokprobe_inline
-void __kprobe_emulate_jmp(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs, bool cond)
+static void kprobe_emulate_jmp(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
 	unsigned long ip = regs->ip - INT3_INSN_SIZE + p->ainsn.size;
 
-	if (cond)
-		ip += p->ainsn.rel32;
+	ip += p->ainsn.rel32;
 	int3_emulate_jmp(regs, ip);
 }
-
-static void kprobe_emulate_jmp(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
-{
-	__kprobe_emulate_jmp(p, regs, true);
-}
 NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(kprobe_emulate_jmp);
 
-static const unsigned long jcc_mask[6] = {
-	[0] = X86_EFLAGS_OF,
-	[1] = X86_EFLAGS_CF,
-	[2] = X86_EFLAGS_ZF,
-	[3] = X86_EFLAGS_CF | X86_EFLAGS_ZF,
-	[4] = X86_EFLAGS_SF,
-	[5] = X86_EFLAGS_PF,
-};
-
 static void kprobe_emulate_jcc(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	bool invert = p->ainsn.jcc.type & 1;
-	bool match;
+	unsigned long ip = regs->ip - INT3_INSN_SIZE + p->ainsn.size;
 
-	if (p->ainsn.jcc.type < 0xc) {
-		match = regs->flags & jcc_mask[p->ainsn.jcc.type >> 1];
-	} else {
-		match = ((regs->flags & X86_EFLAGS_SF) >> X86_EFLAGS_SF_BIT) ^
-			((regs->flags & X86_EFLAGS_OF) >> X86_EFLAGS_OF_BIT);
-		if (p->ainsn.jcc.type >= 0xe)
-			match = match || (regs->flags & X86_EFLAGS_ZF);
-	}
-	__kprobe_emulate_jmp(p, regs, (match && !invert) || (!match && invert));
+	int3_emulate_jcc(regs, p->ainsn.jcc.type, ip, p->ainsn.rel32);
 }
 NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(kprobe_emulate_jcc);
 
 static void kprobe_emulate_loop(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
+	unsigned long ip = regs->ip - INT3_INSN_SIZE + p->ainsn.size;
 	bool match;
 
 	if (p->ainsn.loop.type != 3) {	/* LOOP* */
@@ -534,7 +510,9 @@ static void kprobe_emulate_loop(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
 	else if (p->ainsn.loop.type == 1)	/* LOOPE */
 		match = match && (regs->flags & X86_EFLAGS_ZF);
 
-	__kprobe_emulate_jmp(p, regs, match);
+	if (match)
+		ip += p->ainsn.rel32;
+	int3_emulate_jmp(regs, ip);
 }
 NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(kprobe_emulate_loop);
 
-- 
2.34.1

[PATCH 5.15 v2 2/3] x86/alternatives: Teach text_poke_bp() to patch Jcc.d32 instructions

[Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo]

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>

commit ac0ee0a9560c97fa5fe1409e450c2425d4ebd17a upstream.

In order to re-write Jcc.d32 instructions text_poke_bp() needs to be
taught about them.

The biggest hurdle is that the whole machinery is currently made for 5
byte instructions and extending this would grow struct text_poke_loc
which is currently a nice 16 bytes and used in an array.

However, since text_poke_loc contains a full copy of the (s32)
displacement, it is possible to map the Jcc.d32 2 byte opcodes to
Jcc.d8 1 byte opcode for the int3 emulation.

This then leaves the replacement bytes; fudge that by only storing the
last 5 bytes and adding the rule that 'length == 6' instruction will
be prefixed with a 0x0f byte.

Change-Id: Ie3f72c6b92f865d287c8940e5a87e59d41cfaa27
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230123210607.115718513@infradead.org
[cascardo: there is no emit_call_track_retpoline]
Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@igalia.com>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c b/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
index e5536edbae57..5614e6d219b7 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
@@ -351,6 +351,12 @@ void __init_or_module noinline apply_alternatives(struct alt_instr *start,
 	kasan_enable_current();
 }
 
+static inline bool is_jcc32(struct insn *insn)
+{
+	/* Jcc.d32 second opcode byte is in the range: 0x80-0x8f */
+	return insn->opcode.bytes[0] == 0x0f && (insn->opcode.bytes[1] & 0xf0) == 0x80;
+}
+
 #if defined(CONFIG_RETPOLINE) && defined(CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION)
 
 /*
@@ -1201,6 +1207,11 @@ void text_poke_sync(void)
 	on_each_cpu(do_sync_core, NULL, 1);
 }
 
+/*
+ * NOTE: crazy scheme to allow patching Jcc.d32 but not increase the size of
+ * this thing. When len == 6 everything is prefixed with 0x0f and we map
+ * opcode to Jcc.d8, using len to distinguish.
+ */
 struct text_poke_loc {
 	/* addr := _stext + rel_addr */
 	s32 rel_addr;
@@ -1322,6 +1333,10 @@ noinstr int poke_int3_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
 		int3_emulate_jmp(regs, (long)ip + tp->disp);
 		break;
 
+	case 0x70 ... 0x7f: /* Jcc */
+		int3_emulate_jcc(regs, tp->opcode & 0xf, (long)ip, tp->disp);
+		break;
+
 	default:
 		BUG();
 	}
@@ -1395,16 +1410,26 @@ static void text_poke_bp_batch(struct text_poke_loc *tp, unsigned int nr_entries
 	 * Second step: update all but the first byte of the patched range.
 	 */
 	for (do_sync = 0, i = 0; i < nr_entries; i++) {
-		u8 old[POKE_MAX_OPCODE_SIZE] = { tp[i].old, };
+		u8 old[POKE_MAX_OPCODE_SIZE+1] = { tp[i].old, };
+		u8 _new[POKE_MAX_OPCODE_SIZE+1];
+		const u8 *new = tp[i].text;
 		int len = tp[i].len;
 
 		if (len - INT3_INSN_SIZE > 0) {
 			memcpy(old + INT3_INSN_SIZE,
 			       text_poke_addr(&tp[i]) + INT3_INSN_SIZE,
 			       len - INT3_INSN_SIZE);
+
+			if (len == 6) {
+				_new[0] = 0x0f;
+				memcpy(_new + 1, new, 5);
+				new = _new;
+			}
+
 			text_poke(text_poke_addr(&tp[i]) + INT3_INSN_SIZE,
-				  (const char *)tp[i].text + INT3_INSN_SIZE,
+				  new + INT3_INSN_SIZE,
 				  len - INT3_INSN_SIZE);
+
 			do_sync++;
 		}
 
@@ -1432,8 +1457,7 @@ static void text_poke_bp_batch(struct text_poke_loc *tp, unsigned int nr_entries
 		 * The old instruction is recorded so that the event can be
 		 * processed forwards or backwards.
 		 */
-		perf_event_text_poke(text_poke_addr(&tp[i]), old, len,
-				     tp[i].text, len);
+		perf_event_text_poke(text_poke_addr(&tp[i]), old, len, new, len);
 	}
 
 	if (do_sync) {
@@ -1450,10 +1474,15 @@ static void text_poke_bp_batch(struct text_poke_loc *tp, unsigned int nr_entries
 	 * replacing opcode.
 	 */
 	for (do_sync = 0, i = 0; i < nr_entries; i++) {
-		if (tp[i].text[0] == INT3_INSN_OPCODE)
+		u8 byte = tp[i].text[0];
+
+		if (tp[i].len == 6)
+			byte = 0x0f;
+
+		if (byte == INT3_INSN_OPCODE)
 			continue;
 
-		text_poke(text_poke_addr(&tp[i]), tp[i].text, INT3_INSN_SIZE);
+		text_poke(text_poke_addr(&tp[i]), &byte, INT3_INSN_SIZE);
 		do_sync++;
 	}
 
@@ -1471,9 +1500,11 @@ static void text_poke_loc_init(struct text_poke_loc *tp, void *addr,
 			       const void *opcode, size_t len, const void *emulate)
 {
 	struct insn insn;
-	int ret, i;
+	int ret, i = 0;
 
-	memcpy((void *)tp->text, opcode, len);
+	if (len == 6)
+		i = 1;
+	memcpy((void *)tp->text, opcode+i, len-i);
 	if (!emulate)
 		emulate = opcode;
 
@@ -1484,6 +1515,13 @@ static void text_poke_loc_init(struct text_poke_loc *tp, void *addr,
 	tp->len = len;
 	tp->opcode = insn.opcode.bytes[0];
 
+	if (is_jcc32(&insn)) {
+		/*
+		 * Map Jcc.d32 onto Jcc.d8 and use len to distinguish.
+		 */
+		tp->opcode = insn.opcode.bytes[1] - 0x10;
+	}
+
 	switch (tp->opcode) {
 	case RET_INSN_OPCODE:
 	case JMP32_INSN_OPCODE:
@@ -1500,7 +1538,6 @@ static void text_poke_loc_init(struct text_poke_loc *tp, void *addr,
 		BUG_ON(len != insn.length);
 	};
 
-
 	switch (tp->opcode) {
 	case INT3_INSN_OPCODE:
 	case RET_INSN_OPCODE:
@@ -1509,6 +1546,7 @@ static void text_poke_loc_init(struct text_poke_loc *tp, void *addr,
 	case CALL_INSN_OPCODE:
 	case JMP32_INSN_OPCODE:
 	case JMP8_INSN_OPCODE:
+	case 0x70 ... 0x7f: /* Jcc */
 		tp->disp = insn.immediate.value;
 		break;
 
-- 
2.34.1

[PATCH 5.15 v2 3/3] x86/static_call: Add support for Jcc tail-calls

[Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo]

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>

commit 923510c88d2b7d947c4217835fd9ca6bd65cc56c upstream.

Clang likes to create conditional tail calls like:

  0000000000000350 <amd_pmu_add_event>:
  350:       0f 1f 44 00 00          nopl   0x0(%rax,%rax,1) 351: R_X86_64_NONE      __fentry__-0x4
  355:       48 83 bf 20 01 00 00 00         cmpq   $0x0,0x120(%rdi)
  35d:       0f 85 00 00 00 00       jne    363 <amd_pmu_add_event+0x13>     35f: R_X86_64_PLT32     __SCT__amd_pmu_branch_add-0x4
  363:       e9 00 00 00 00          jmp    368 <amd_pmu_add_event+0x18>     364: R_X86_64_PLT32     __x86_return_thunk-0x4

Where 0x35d is a static call site that's turned into a conditional
tail-call using the Jcc class of instructions.

Teach the in-line static call text patching about this.

Notably, since there is no conditional-ret, in that case patch the Jcc
to point at an empty stub function that does the ret -- or the return
thunk when needed.

Reported-by: "Erhard F." <erhard_f@mailbox.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/Y9Kdg9QjHkr9G5b5@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
[nathan: Backport to 6.1:
         - Use __x86_return_thunk instead of x86_return_thunk for func in
           __static_call_transform()
         - Remove ASM_FUNC_ALIGN in __static_call_return() asm, as call
           depth tracking was merged in 6.2]
Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
[cascardo: __static_call_validate didn't have the bool tramp argument]
Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@igalia.com>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/static_call.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/static_call.c b/arch/x86/kernel/static_call.c
index e25050c7ff1e..94378f202c50 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/static_call.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/static_call.c
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ enum insn_type {
 	NOP = 1,  /* site cond-call */
 	JMP = 2,  /* tramp / site tail-call */
 	RET = 3,  /* tramp / site cond-tail-call */
+	JCC = 4,
 };
 
 /*
@@ -25,12 +26,39 @@ static const u8 xor5rax[] = { 0x2e, 0x2e, 0x2e, 0x31, 0xc0 };
 
 static const u8 retinsn[] = { RET_INSN_OPCODE, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc };
 
+static u8 __is_Jcc(u8 *insn) /* Jcc.d32 */
+{
+	u8 ret = 0;
+
+	if (insn[0] == 0x0f) {
+		u8 tmp = insn[1];
+		if ((tmp & 0xf0) == 0x80)
+			ret = tmp;
+	}
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
+extern void __static_call_return(void);
+
+asm (".global __static_call_return\n\t"
+     ".type __static_call_return, @function\n\t"
+     "__static_call_return:\n\t"
+     ANNOTATE_NOENDBR
+     ANNOTATE_RETPOLINE_SAFE
+     "ret; int3\n\t"
+     ".size __static_call_return, . - __static_call_return \n\t");
+
 static void __ref __static_call_transform(void *insn, enum insn_type type,
 					  void *func, bool modinit)
 {
 	const void *emulate = NULL;
 	int size = CALL_INSN_SIZE;
 	const void *code;
+	u8 op, buf[6];
+
+	if ((type == JMP || type == RET) && (op = __is_Jcc(insn)))
+		type = JCC;
 
 	switch (type) {
 	case CALL:
@@ -56,6 +84,20 @@ static void __ref __static_call_transform(void *insn, enum insn_type type,
 		else
 			code = &retinsn;
 		break;
+
+	case JCC:
+		if (!func) {
+			func = __static_call_return;
+			if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_RETHUNK))
+				func = __x86_return_thunk;
+		}
+
+		buf[0] = 0x0f;
+		__text_gen_insn(buf+1, op, insn+1, func, 5);
+		code = buf;
+		size = 6;
+
+		break;
 	}
 
 	if (memcmp(insn, code, size) == 0)
@@ -67,13 +109,14 @@ static void __ref __static_call_transform(void *insn, enum insn_type type,
 	text_poke_bp(insn, code, size, emulate);
 }
 
-static void __static_call_validate(void *insn, bool tail)
+static void __static_call_validate(u8 *insn, bool tail)
 {
-	u8 opcode = *(u8 *)insn;
+	u8 opcode = insn[0];
 
 	if (tail) {
 		if (opcode == JMP32_INSN_OPCODE ||
-		    opcode == RET_INSN_OPCODE)
+		    opcode == RET_INSN_OPCODE ||
+		    __is_Jcc(insn))
 			return;
 	} else {
 		if (opcode == CALL_INSN_OPCODE ||
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH 5.15 v2 0/3] Support static calls with LLVM-built kernels

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 10:39:04AM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> Otherwise, we see warnings like this:
> 
> [    0.000000][    T0] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [    0.000000][    T0] unexpected static_call insn opcode 0xf at kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
> [    0.000000][    T0] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at arch/x86/kernel/static_call.c:88 __static_call_validate+0x68/0x70
> [    0.000000][    T0] Modules linked in:
> [    0.000000][    T0] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 5.15.151-00083-gf200c7260296 #68 fe3cb25cf78cb710722bb5acd1cadddd35172924
> [    0.000000][    T0] RIP: 0010:__static_call_validate+0x68/0x70
> [    0.000000][    T0] Code: 0f b6 4a 04 81 f1 c0 00 00 00 09 c1 74 cc 80 3d be 2c 02 02 00 75 c3 c6 05 b5 2c 02 02 01 48 c7 c7 38 4f c3 82 e8 e8 c8 09 00 <0f> 0b c3 00 00 cc cc 00 53 48 89 fb 48 63 15 31 71 06 02
> e8 b0 b8
> [    0.000000][    T0] RSP: 0000:ffffffff82e03e70 EFLAGS: 00010046 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000000
> [    0.000000][    T0] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 0000000000000002
> [    0.000000][    T0] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffffff82e03ce0 RDI: 0000000000000001
> [    0.000000][    T0] RBP: 0000000000000001 R08: 00000000ffffffff R09: ffffffff82eaab70
> [    0.000000][    T0] R10: ffffffff82e2e900 R11: 205d305420202020 R12: ffffffff82e51960
> [    0.000000][    T0] R13: ffffffff81038987 R14: ffffffff81038987 R15: 0000000000000001
> [    0.000000][    T0] FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffffffff83726000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> [    0.000000][    T0] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> [    0.000000][    T0] CR2: ffff888000014be8 CR3: 00000000037b2000 CR4: 00000000000000a0
> [    0.000000][    T0] Call Trace:
> [    0.000000][    T0]  <TASK>
> [    0.000000][    T0]  ? __warn+0x75/0xe0
> [    0.000000][    T0]  ? report_bug+0x81/0xe0
> [    0.000000][    T0]  ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
> [    0.000000][    T0]  ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
> [    0.000000][    T0]  ? early_fixup_exception+0x44/0xa0
> [    0.000000][    T0]  ? early_idt_handler_common+0x2f/0x40
> [    0.000000][    T0]  ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
> [    0.000000][    T0]  ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
> [    0.000000][    T0]  ? __static_call_validate+0x68/0x70
> [    0.000000][    T0]  ? arch_static_call_transform+0x5c/0x90
> [    0.000000][    T0]  ? __static_call_init+0x1ec/0x230
> [    0.000000][    T0]  ? static_call_init+0x32/0x70
> [    0.000000][    T0]  ? setup_arch+0x36/0x4f0
> [    0.000000][    T0]  ? start_kernel+0x67/0x400
> [    0.000000][    T0]  ? secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xb1/0xbb
> [    0.000000][    T0]  </TASK>
> [    0.000000][    T0] ---[ end trace 8c8589c01f370686 ]---
> 
> 
> 
> Peter Zijlstra (3):
>   x86/alternatives: Introduce int3_emulate_jcc()
>   x86/alternatives: Teach text_poke_bp() to patch Jcc.d32 instructions
>   x86/static_call: Add support for Jcc tail-calls
> 
>  arch/x86/include/asm/text-patching.h | 31 +++++++++++++++
>  arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c        | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c       | 38 ++++---------------
>  arch/x86/kernel/static_call.c        | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  4 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)

Why is there a v2 series here?  Are the ones I just took not correct?

confused,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH 5.15 v2 0/3] Support static calls with LLVM-built kernels

[Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo]

On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 01:50:11PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 10:39:04AM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > Otherwise, we see warnings like this:
> > 
> > [    0.000000][    T0] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > [    0.000000][    T0] unexpected static_call insn opcode 0xf at kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
> > [    0.000000][    T0] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at arch/x86/kernel/static_call.c:88 __static_call_validate+0x68/0x70
> > [    0.000000][    T0] Modules linked in:
> > [    0.000000][    T0] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 5.15.151-00083-gf200c7260296 #68 fe3cb25cf78cb710722bb5acd1cadddd35172924
> > [    0.000000][    T0] RIP: 0010:__static_call_validate+0x68/0x70
> > [    0.000000][    T0] Code: 0f b6 4a 04 81 f1 c0 00 00 00 09 c1 74 cc 80 3d be 2c 02 02 00 75 c3 c6 05 b5 2c 02 02 01 48 c7 c7 38 4f c3 82 e8 e8 c8 09 00 <0f> 0b c3 00 00 cc cc 00 53 48 89 fb 48 63 15 31 71 06 02
> > e8 b0 b8
> > [    0.000000][    T0] RSP: 0000:ffffffff82e03e70 EFLAGS: 00010046 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000000
> > [    0.000000][    T0] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 0000000000000002
> > [    0.000000][    T0] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffffff82e03ce0 RDI: 0000000000000001
> > [    0.000000][    T0] RBP: 0000000000000001 R08: 00000000ffffffff R09: ffffffff82eaab70
> > [    0.000000][    T0] R10: ffffffff82e2e900 R11: 205d305420202020 R12: ffffffff82e51960
> > [    0.000000][    T0] R13: ffffffff81038987 R14: ffffffff81038987 R15: 0000000000000001
> > [    0.000000][    T0] FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffffffff83726000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > [    0.000000][    T0] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > [    0.000000][    T0] CR2: ffff888000014be8 CR3: 00000000037b2000 CR4: 00000000000000a0
> > [    0.000000][    T0] Call Trace:
> > [    0.000000][    T0]  <TASK>
> > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? __warn+0x75/0xe0
> > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? report_bug+0x81/0xe0
> > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
> > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
> > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? early_fixup_exception+0x44/0xa0
> > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? early_idt_handler_common+0x2f/0x40
> > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
> > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
> > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? __static_call_validate+0x68/0x70
> > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? arch_static_call_transform+0x5c/0x90
> > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? __static_call_init+0x1ec/0x230
> > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? static_call_init+0x32/0x70
> > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? setup_arch+0x36/0x4f0
> > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? start_kernel+0x67/0x400
> > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xb1/0xbb
> > [    0.000000][    T0]  </TASK>
> > [    0.000000][    T0] ---[ end trace 8c8589c01f370686 ]---
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Peter Zijlstra (3):
> >   x86/alternatives: Introduce int3_emulate_jcc()
> >   x86/alternatives: Teach text_poke_bp() to patch Jcc.d32 instructions
> >   x86/static_call: Add support for Jcc tail-calls
> > 
> >  arch/x86/include/asm/text-patching.h | 31 +++++++++++++++
> >  arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c        | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c       | 38 ++++---------------
> >  arch/x86/kernel/static_call.c        | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  4 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
> 
> Why is there a v2 series here?  Are the ones I just took not correct?
> 
> confused,
> 
> greg k-h

Because Sasha questioned the presence of the first 2 patches in the series
while they were not backported to 6.1. Then, I looked at the 6.1 backport for
reference and determined they were not really necessary if I picked the same
changes that the 6.1 backport applied.

Thanks.
Cascardo.

Re: [PATCH 5.15 v2 0/3] Support static calls with LLVM-built kernels

[Greg KH]

On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 06:57:06AM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 01:50:11PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 10:39:04AM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > > Otherwise, we see warnings like this:
> > > 
> > > [    0.000000][    T0] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > > [    0.000000][    T0] unexpected static_call insn opcode 0xf at kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
> > > [    0.000000][    T0] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at arch/x86/kernel/static_call.c:88 __static_call_validate+0x68/0x70
> > > [    0.000000][    T0] Modules linked in:
> > > [    0.000000][    T0] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 5.15.151-00083-gf200c7260296 #68 fe3cb25cf78cb710722bb5acd1cadddd35172924
> > > [    0.000000][    T0] RIP: 0010:__static_call_validate+0x68/0x70
> > > [    0.000000][    T0] Code: 0f b6 4a 04 81 f1 c0 00 00 00 09 c1 74 cc 80 3d be 2c 02 02 00 75 c3 c6 05 b5 2c 02 02 01 48 c7 c7 38 4f c3 82 e8 e8 c8 09 00 <0f> 0b c3 00 00 cc cc 00 53 48 89 fb 48 63 15 31 71 06 02
> > > e8 b0 b8
> > > [    0.000000][    T0] RSP: 0000:ffffffff82e03e70 EFLAGS: 00010046 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000000
> > > [    0.000000][    T0] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 0000000000000002
> > > [    0.000000][    T0] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffffff82e03ce0 RDI: 0000000000000001
> > > [    0.000000][    T0] RBP: 0000000000000001 R08: 00000000ffffffff R09: ffffffff82eaab70
> > > [    0.000000][    T0] R10: ffffffff82e2e900 R11: 205d305420202020 R12: ffffffff82e51960
> > > [    0.000000][    T0] R13: ffffffff81038987 R14: ffffffff81038987 R15: 0000000000000001
> > > [    0.000000][    T0] FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffffffff83726000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > > [    0.000000][    T0] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > > [    0.000000][    T0] CR2: ffff888000014be8 CR3: 00000000037b2000 CR4: 00000000000000a0
> > > [    0.000000][    T0] Call Trace:
> > > [    0.000000][    T0]  <TASK>
> > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? __warn+0x75/0xe0
> > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? report_bug+0x81/0xe0
> > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
> > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
> > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? early_fixup_exception+0x44/0xa0
> > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? early_idt_handler_common+0x2f/0x40
> > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
> > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
> > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? __static_call_validate+0x68/0x70
> > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? arch_static_call_transform+0x5c/0x90
> > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? __static_call_init+0x1ec/0x230
> > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? static_call_init+0x32/0x70
> > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? setup_arch+0x36/0x4f0
> > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? start_kernel+0x67/0x400
> > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xb1/0xbb
> > > [    0.000000][    T0]  </TASK>
> > > [    0.000000][    T0] ---[ end trace 8c8589c01f370686 ]---
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Peter Zijlstra (3):
> > >   x86/alternatives: Introduce int3_emulate_jcc()
> > >   x86/alternatives: Teach text_poke_bp() to patch Jcc.d32 instructions
> > >   x86/static_call: Add support for Jcc tail-calls
> > > 
> > >  arch/x86/include/asm/text-patching.h | 31 +++++++++++++++
> > >  arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c        | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > >  arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c       | 38 ++++---------------
> > >  arch/x86/kernel/static_call.c        | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > >  4 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Why is there a v2 series here?  Are the ones I just took not correct?
> > 
> > confused,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> Because Sasha questioned the presence of the first 2 patches in the series
> while they were not backported to 6.1. Then, I looked at the 6.1 backport for
> reference and determined they were not really necessary if I picked the same
> changes that the 6.1 backport applied.

So is what I queued up correct or not?

still confused,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH 5.15 v2 0/3] Support static calls with LLVM-built kernels

[Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo]

On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 11:11:14AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 06:57:06AM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 01:50:11PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 10:39:04AM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > > > Otherwise, we see warnings like this:
> > > > 
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0] unexpected static_call insn opcode 0xf at kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at arch/x86/kernel/static_call.c:88 __static_call_validate+0x68/0x70
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0] Modules linked in:
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 5.15.151-00083-gf200c7260296 #68 fe3cb25cf78cb710722bb5acd1cadddd35172924
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0] RIP: 0010:__static_call_validate+0x68/0x70
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0] Code: 0f b6 4a 04 81 f1 c0 00 00 00 09 c1 74 cc 80 3d be 2c 02 02 00 75 c3 c6 05 b5 2c 02 02 01 48 c7 c7 38 4f c3 82 e8 e8 c8 09 00 <0f> 0b c3 00 00 cc cc 00 53 48 89 fb 48 63 15 31 71 06 02
> > > > e8 b0 b8
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0] RSP: 0000:ffffffff82e03e70 EFLAGS: 00010046 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000000
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 0000000000000002
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffffff82e03ce0 RDI: 0000000000000001
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0] RBP: 0000000000000001 R08: 00000000ffffffff R09: ffffffff82eaab70
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0] R10: ffffffff82e2e900 R11: 205d305420202020 R12: ffffffff82e51960
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0] R13: ffffffff81038987 R14: ffffffff81038987 R15: 0000000000000001
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0] FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffffffff83726000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0] CR2: ffff888000014be8 CR3: 00000000037b2000 CR4: 00000000000000a0
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0] Call Trace:
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0]  <TASK>
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? __warn+0x75/0xe0
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? report_bug+0x81/0xe0
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? early_fixup_exception+0x44/0xa0
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? early_idt_handler_common+0x2f/0x40
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? __static_call_validate+0x68/0x70
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? arch_static_call_transform+0x5c/0x90
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? __static_call_init+0x1ec/0x230
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? static_call_init+0x32/0x70
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? setup_arch+0x36/0x4f0
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? start_kernel+0x67/0x400
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0]  ? secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xb1/0xbb
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0]  </TASK>
> > > > [    0.000000][    T0] ---[ end trace 8c8589c01f370686 ]---
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Peter Zijlstra (3):
> > > >   x86/alternatives: Introduce int3_emulate_jcc()
> > > >   x86/alternatives: Teach text_poke_bp() to patch Jcc.d32 instructions
> > > >   x86/static_call: Add support for Jcc tail-calls
> > > > 
> > > >  arch/x86/include/asm/text-patching.h | 31 +++++++++++++++
> > > >  arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c        | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > >  arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c       | 38 ++++---------------
> > > >  arch/x86/kernel/static_call.c        | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > >  4 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > Why is there a v2 series here?  Are the ones I just took not correct?
> > > 
> > > confused,
> > > 
> > > greg k-h
> > 
> > Because Sasha questioned the presence of the first 2 patches in the series
> > while they were not backported to 6.1. Then, I looked at the 6.1 backport for
> > reference and determined they were not really necessary if I picked the same
> > changes that the 6.1 backport applied.
> 
> So is what I queued up correct or not?
> 
> still confused,
> 
> greg k-h
> 

Either version are good. I understand there is a preference for v2 since it
doesn't include a change that was not applied in a later series, 6.1.y.

Cascardo.