Re: Why is text_mutex used in jump_label_transform for x86_64

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 04:39:11PM +0800, chengjian (D) wrote:
> 
> On 2020/3/20 18:27, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > It depends on the architecture details of how self-modifying code works.
> > In particular, x86 is a variable instruction length architecture and
> > needs extreme care -- it's implementation requires there only be a
> > single text modifier at any one time, hence the use of text_mutex.
> > 
> > ARM64 OTOH is, like most RISC based architectures, a fixed width
> > instruction architecture. And in particular it can re-write certain
> > (branch) instructions with impunity (see their
> > aarch64_insn_patch_text_nosync()). Which is why they don't need
> > additional serialization.
> 
> Hi, Peter
> 
> Thank you very much for your reply.
> 
> X86 is a variable-length instruction, only one byte modification of the
> instruction
> can be regarded as atomic. so we must be very careful when modifying
> instructions
> concurrently.

Close enough.

> For other architectures such as ARM64, the modification of some instructions
> can be
> considered atomic, (Eg. nop -> jmp/b). The set of instructions that can be
> executed
> by one thread of execution as they are being modified by another thread of
> execution
> without requiring explicit synchronization.
> 
> In ARM64 Architecture Reference Manual, I find that:
> ÂÂÂ Concurrent modification and execution of instructions can lead to the
> resulting instruction performing any behavior
> ÂÂÂ that can be achieved by executing any sequence of instructions that can
> be executed from the same Exception level,
> ÂÂÂ except where each of the instruction before modification and the
> instruction after modification is one of a B, BL, BRK,
> ÂÂÂ HVC, ISB, NOP, SMC, or SVC instruction.
> ÂÂÂ For the B, BL, BRK, HVC, ISB, NOP, SMC, and SVC instructions the
> architecture guarantees that, after modification of the
> ÂÂÂ instruction, behavior is consistent with execution of either:
> ÂÂÂ â The instruction originally fetched.
> ÂÂÂ â A fetch of the modified instruction
> 
> So we can safely modify jump_label for ARM64(from NOP to b or form b to
> NOP).
> 
> Is my understanding correct?

I think so; but I'm really not much of an ARM64 person. FWIW I think I
remember Will saying the same is true of ARM (32bit) and they could
implement the same optimization, but so far nobody has bothered doing
so. But please, ask an ARM64 maintainer and don't take my word for this.