Re: [PATCH 03/24] x86/paravirt: Annotate indirect calls

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 11:26 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 25/01/18 11:22, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:02:05AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 2018-01-23 at 16:25 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Paravirt emits indirect calls which get flagged by objtool retpoline
> > > > checks, annotate it away because all these indirect calls will be
> > > > patched out before we start userspace.
> > > I've seen this asserted repeatedly but I've never truly convinced
> > > myself of it. Is this absolutely unconditionally true in every case,
> > > even when we're running as a guest and there are *actual* calls to be
> > > made? We turn them into direct calls, never leave them indirect?
> > That is my understanding; and when I worked on the paravirt spinlock
> > code and disassembled live guest code this seemed to have happend.
> > 
> > But let me go read the paravirt code again to make a stronger argument
> > in favour.
> > 
> paravirt_patch_default() is the function you want to look at: it either
> replaces the indirect call by some cutom code (which is never an
> indirect call) or by a call of the target function.

OK, my brain hurts a bit but I'm happy now. Thank you.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature