lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 06/24] x86,kvm: Fix indirect calls in emulator
From
Date
On 25/01/2018 10:34, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:43:05AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 24/01/2018 11:35, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 08:48:13PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2018-01-23 at 21:28 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>        flags = (flags & EFLAGS_MASK) | X86_EFLAGS_IF;
>>>>>> -     asm("push %[flags]; popf; call *%[fastop]"
>>>>>> -         : "=a"(rc) : [fastop]"r"(fop), [flags]"r"(flags));
>>>>>> +     asm("push %[flags]; popf; " CALL_NOSPEC
>>>>>> +         : "=a"(rc) : [thunk_target]"r"(fop), [flags]"r"(flags));
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, "thunk_target" is magical.
>>>>
>>>> You can use THUNK_TARGET(fop), which will be "rm" on 32-bit and avoids
>>>> register starvation in some cases (I don't think the hyperv calls
>>>> worked until I did that).
>>>
>>> The reason I didn't use THUNK_TARGET() was exactly because it used "rm"
>>> and the current code did "r" only. I'm happy to change if people can
>>> agree on something ;-)
>>
>> In practice, "fastop" is going to be in a register because of how it's
>> computed, but "rm" is okay.
>
> OK, so the other occurence in that file uses "+S", which is the SI
> register. That cannot use THUNK_TARGET(), right?

Nope, it reads the output in %esi too.

> So do you want one THUNK_TARGET and one open coded, or keep the patch as
> is (both open coded) ?

Open coded is okay.

Paolo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-26 11:57    [W:0.056 / U:0.964 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site