Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/paravirt: add extra clobbers with ZERO_CALL_USED_REGS enabled

[Bill Wendling]

On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 12:10 AM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 10:50:03AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:00:07PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 11:02 PM Bill Wendling <morbo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2022 at 12:18 AM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 09:37:50PM +0000, Bill Wendling wrote:
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > >         callq   *pv_ops+536(%rip)
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you know which pv_ops function is this? I can't figure out where
> > > > > pte_offset_kernel() gets converted into a pv_ops call....
> > > > >
> > > > This one is _paravirt_ident_64, I believe. I think that the original
> > > > issue Nathan was seeing was with another seemingly innocuous function.
> > >
> > > _paravirt_ident_64 is marked noinstr, which makes me suspect that it
> > > really needs to not be touched at all by the compiler for
> > > these...special features.
> >
> > My source tree sayeth:
> >
> >   u64 notrace _paravirt_ident_64(u64 x)
>
> I don't see noinstr either. But it seems a reasonable thing to do?
>
> Bill, does fixing up the noinstr macro and adding it here fix the
> problem?
>
[sorry for late response]

Let me give it a shot. I'll also test out Peter's suggestion, which
might be a better option in the long run. I suspect that we'll need to
devise similar patches for other places, but it shouldn't be hard to
find them all.

-bw

-bw