Re: [PATCH 8/8] x86/retpoline: Fix retpoline unwind

[Josh Poimboeuf]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 02:47:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>  .macro CALL_NOSPEC reg:req
>  #ifdef CONFIG_RETPOLINE
> -	ANNOTATE_NOSPEC_ALTERNATIVE
> -	ALTERNATIVE_2 __stringify(ANNOTATE_RETPOLINE_SAFE; call *%\reg),\
> -		__stringify(RETPOLINE_CALL %\reg), X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE,\
> -		__stringify(lfence; ANNOTATE_RETPOLINE_SAFE; call *%\reg), X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE_AMD
> +	/*
> +	 * This cannot be ALTERNATIVE_2 like with JMP_NOSPEC, because ORC
> +	 * unwind data is alternative invariant and needs stack modifying
> +	 * instructions to be in the same place for all alternatives.
> +	 *
> +	 * IOW the CALL instruction must be at the same offset for all cases.
> +	 */
> +	ALTERNATIVE "", "lfence", X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE_AMD
> +	ALTERNATIVE __stringify(ANNOTATE_RETPOLINE_SAFE; call *%\reg), \
> +		    __stringify(call __x86_retpoline_\reg), X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE

I'm missing why ALTERNATIVE_2 wouldn't work here.  How is the call a
"stack modifying instruction"?  It's not an intra-function call so it
shouldn't affect ORC at all, right?

>  # define CALL_NOSPEC						\
> -	ANNOTATE_NOSPEC_ALTERNATIVE				\
> -	ALTERNATIVE_2(						\
> -	ANNOTATE_RETPOLINE_SAFE					\
> -	"call *%[thunk_target]\n",				\
> -	"call __x86_indirect_thunk_%V[thunk_target]\n",		\
> -	X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE,					\
> -	"lfence;\n"						\
> -	ANNOTATE_RETPOLINE_SAFE					\
> -	"call *%[thunk_target]\n",				\
> -	X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE_AMD)
> +	ALTERNATIVE("", "lfence", X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE_AMD)	\
> +	ALTERNATIVE(ANNOTATE_RETPOLINE_SAFE			\
> +		    "call *%[thunk_target]\n",			\
> +		    "call __x86_indirect_thunk_%V[thunk_target]\n", \
> +		    X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE)
> +

Same.

-- 
Josh