On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 11:31:06AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 06:25:24PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On 9 November 2018 at 16:14, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org>
> > wrote:
> > > On 9 November 2018 at 16:10, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:39:17PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > >>> > + for (site = start; site < stop; site++) {
> > >>> > + struct static_call_key *key = static_call_key(site);
> > >>> > + unsigned long addr = static_call_addr(site);
> > >>> > +
> > >>> > + if (list_empty(&key->site_mods)) {
> > >>> > + struct static_call_mod *mod;
> > >>> > +
> > >>> > + mod = kzalloc(sizeof(*mod), GFP_KERNEL);
> > >>> > + if (!mod) {
> > >>> > + WARN(1, "Failed to allocate memory
> > >>> > for static calls");
> > >>> > + return;
> > >>> > + }
> > >>> > +
> > >>> > + mod->sites = site;
> > >>> > + list_add_tail(&mod->list, &key->site_mods);
> > >>> > +
> > >>> > + /*
> > >>> > + * The trampoline should no longer be used.
> > >>> > Poison it
> > >>> > + * it with a BUG() to catch any stray callers.
> > >>> > + */
> > >>> > + arch_static_call_poison_tramp(addr);
> > >>>
> > >>> This patches the wrong thing: the trampoline is at key->func not addr.
> > >>
> > >> If you look at the x86 implementation, it actually does poison the
> > >> trampoline.
> > >>
> > >> The address of the trampoline isn't actually known here. key->func
> > >> isn't the trampoline address; it's the destination func address.
> > >>
> > >> So instead I passed the address of the call instruction. The arch code
> > >> then reads the instruction to find the callee (the trampoline).
> > >>
> > >> The code is a bit confusing. To make it more obvious, maybe we should
> > >> add another arch function to read the call destination. Then this code
> > >> can pass that into arch_static_call_poison_tramp().
> > >>
> > >
> > > Ah right, so I am basically missing a dereference in my
> > > arch_static_call_poison_tramp() code if this breaks.
> > >
> >
> > Could we call it 'defuse' rather than 'poision'? On arm64, we will
> > need to keep it around to bounce function calls that are out of range,
> > and replace it with a PLT sequence.
>
> Ok, but doesn't that defeat the purpose of the inline approach?
Or are you only going to use the trampoline for out-of-range calls,
otherwise just do direct calls?
--
Josh
