Re: [RFC] de-asmify the x86-64 system call slowpath

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> do_signal() is also a place where arbitrary changes to regs might've
>> been done by tracer, so regs->cs might need to be checked in the same
>> place where we validate regs->rip ;-/
>
> Fair enough. But it would still be really easy, and make the common
> case signal delivery a bit faster.
>
> Now, sadly, most signal delivery is then followed by sigreturn (the
> exceptions being dying or doing a longjmp), so we'd still get the
> iretq then. But it would cut the iretq's related to signals in half.
>
> We *could* try to do sigreturn with sysret and a small trampoline too,
> of course. But I'm not sure how far I'd want to take it.

I once spent a while thinking about how to do this.  The best I could
come up with was to use something like 'ret 128' for the trampoline.
(The issue here is that there's no good place to shove a global
variable with the missing register values, fs and gs aren't really
available for these games, and the red zone is in the way.)

I think that sysret for sigreturn is probably not very interesting.
On the other hand, sysret for #PF might be a huge win, despite being
even scarier.

(Or someone could politely ask Intel for a couple of non-serializing
msrs that set the values of rcx and whatever other registers get
clobbered by sysret.)

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