lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86/static_call: Add inline static call implementation for x86-64
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 10:58:40 -0800
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:47 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > Note, we do have a bit of control at what is getting called. The patch
> > set requires that the callers are wrapped in macros. We should not
> > allow just any random callers (like from asm).
>
> Actually, I'd argue that asm is often more controlled than C code.
>
> Right now you can do odd things if you really want to, and have the
> compiler generate indirect calls to those wrapper functions.
>
> For example, I can easily imagine a pre-retpoline compiler turning
>
> if (cond)
> fn1(a,b)
> else
> fn2(a,b);
>
> into a function pointer conditional
>
> (cond ? fn1 : fn2)(a,b);

If we are worried about such a construct, wouldn't a compiler barrier
before and after the static_call solve that?

barrier();
static_call(func...);
barrier();

It should also stop tail calls too.

>
> and honestly, the way "static_call()" works now, can you guarantee
> that the call-site doesn't end up doing that, and calling the
> trampoline function for two different static calls from one indirect
> call?
>
> See what I'm talking about? Saying "callers are wrapped in macros"
> doesn't actually protect you from the compiler doing things like that.
>
> In contrast, if the call was wrapped in an inline asm, we'd *know* the
> compiler couldn't turn a "call wrapper(%rip)" into anything else.

But then we need to implement all numbers of parameters.

-- Steve

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-29 20:17    [W:0.214 / U:3.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site