LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
To: Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/64: Avoid link stack corruption in kexec_wait()
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 10:54:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9f43118b-ef81-9a80-0e0b-5e74433e0b8c@csgroup.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87ilzm6str.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net>



Le 31/08/2021 à 08:17, Daniel Axtens a écrit :
> Hi Christophe,
> 
>> Use bcl 20,31,+4 instead of bl in order to preserve link stack.
>>
>> See commit c974809a26a1 ("powerpc/vdso: Avoid link stack corruption
>> in __get_datapage()") for details.
> 
>  From my understanding of that commit message, the change helps to keep
> the link stack correctly balanced which is helpful for performance,
> rather than for correctness. If I understand correctly, kexec_wait is
> not in a hot path - rather it is where CPUs spin while waiting for
> kexec. Is there any benefit in using the more complicated opcode in this
> situation?

AFAICS the main benefit is to keep things consistent over the kernel and not have to wonder "is it a 
hot path or not ? If it is I use bcl 20,31, if it is not I use bl". The best way to keep things in 
order is to always use the right instruction.

> 
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
>> ---
>>   arch/powerpc/kernel/misc_64.S | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/misc_64.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/misc_64.S
>> index 4b761a18a74d..613509907166 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/misc_64.S
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/misc_64.S
>> @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ _GLOBAL(scom970_write)
>>    * Physical (hardware) cpu id should be in r3.
>>    */
>>   _GLOBAL(kexec_wait)
>> -	bl	1f
>> +	bcl	20,31,1f
>>   1:	mflr	r5
> 
> Would it be better to create a macro of some sort to wrap this unusual
> special form so that the meaning is more clear?

Not sure, I think people working with assembly will easily recognise that form whereas an obscure 
macro is always puzzling.

I like macros when they allow you to not repeat again and again the same sequence of several 
instructions, but here it is a single quite simple instruction which is not worth a macro in my mind.

Christophe

  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-31  8:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-23  7:52 Christophe Leroy
2021-08-31  6:17 ` Daniel Axtens
2021-08-31  8:54   ` Christophe Leroy [this message]
2021-08-31 12:43     ` Daniel Axtens

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=9f43118b-ef81-9a80-0e0b-5e74433e0b8c@csgroup.eu \
    --to=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=dja@axtens.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] powerpc/64: Avoid link stack corruption in kexec_wait()' \
    /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

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).