Re: [PATCH 18/25] [PATCH] turn priviled operations into macros in entry.S

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

Hi Andi,

Thanks for all the comments, it's greatly appreciated.

On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:

>
> > +#define SYSRETQ						\
> > +			movq	%gs:pda_oldrsp,%rsp;	\
> > +			swapgs;				\
> > +			sysretq;
>
> When the macro does more than sysret it should have a different
> name

Noted. Do you have a better idea? Something like SETSTACK_SWAPGS_SYSRETQ?

>
>
> >   */
> >  	.globl int_ret_from_sys_call
> >  int_ret_from_sys_call:
> > -	cli
> > +	DISABLE_INTERRUPTS(CLBR_ANY)
>
> ANY? There are certainly some registers alive at this point like rax

Glauber will need to address this, this is his code ;-)

>
> >  retint_restore_args:
> > -	cli
> > +	DISABLE_INTERRUPTS(CLBR_ANY)
>
> Similar.
>
>
> >  	/*
> >  	 * The iretq could re-enable interrupts:
> >  	 */
> > @@ -566,10 +587,14 @@ retint_restore_args:
> >  restore_args:
> >  	RESTORE_ARGS 0,8,0
> >  iret_label:
> > -	iretq
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> > +	INTERRUPT_RETURN
> > +ENTRY(native_iret)
>
> ENTRY adds alignment. Why do you need that export anyways?

The paravirt ops struct points to it.

>
> > +#endif
> > +1:	iretq
> >
> >  	.section __ex_table,"a"
> > -	.quad iret_label,bad_iret
> > +	.quad 1b, bad_iret
>
> iret_label seems more expressive to me than 1

The reason for this change is because of the added:
#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
	INTERRUPT_RETURN
ENTRY(native_iret)
#endif

If we are paravirt ops, we need the iretq in the exception table, not the
paravit ops function call.  Since that function call may simply call the
native_iretq, and if we take a fault at the iretq, it wont be in the
exception table.

>
> > +	ENABLE_INTERRUPTS(CLBR_NONE)
>
> In many of the CLBR_NONEs there are actually some registers free;
> but it might be safer to keep it this way. But if some client can get
> significantly better code with one or two free registers it might
> be worthwhile to investigate.

Glauber, that comment is for you.

>
> > -	swapgs
> > +	SWAPGS_NOSTACK
>
> There's still stack here

OK, bad name then. How about SWAPGS_UNTRUSTED_STACK?

>From earlier in the file where SWAPGS_NOSTACK is declared we have:


/* Currently paravirt can't handle swapgs nicely when we
 * don't have a stack.  So we either find a way around these
 * or just fault and emulate if a guest tries to call swapgs
 * directly.
 *
 * Either way, this is a good way to document that we don't
 * have a reliable stack.
 */
#define SWAPGS_NOSTACK		swapgs

>
> >  paranoid_restore\trace:
> >  	RESTORE_ALL 8
> > -	iretq
> > +	INTERRUPT_RETURN
>
> I suspect Xen will need much more changes anyways because of its
> ring 3 guest. Are these changes sufficient for lguest?

Probably not, but this part of the code I don't fully understand. But just
doing this doesn't break lguest.  But perhaps it only did not break it yet
;-)


Thanks,

-- Steve

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/