Re: [PATCH 0/3] static_call/x86: Handle clang's conditional tail calls

[Nathan Chancellor]

Hi Peter and Ingo,

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 09:59:15PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Erhard reported boot fails on this AMD machine when using clang and bisected it
> to a commit introducing a few static_call()s. Turns out that when using clang
> with -Os it it very likely to generate conditional tail calls like:
> 
>   0000000000000350 <amd_pmu_add_event>:
>   350:       0f 1f 44 00 00          nopl   0x0(%rax,%rax,1) 351: R_X86_64_NONE      __fentry__-0x4
>   355:       48 83 bf 20 01 00 00 00         cmpq   $0x0,0x120(%rdi)
>   35d:       0f 85 00 00 00 00       jne    363 <amd_pmu_add_event+0x13>     35f: R_X86_64_PLT32     __SCT__amd_pmu_branch_add-0x4
>   363:       e9 00 00 00 00          jmp    368 <amd_pmu_add_event+0x18>     364: R_X86_64_PLT32     __x86_return_thunk-0x4
> 
> And our inline static_call() patching code can't deal with those and BUG
> happens -- really early.
> 
> These patches borrow the kprobe Jcc emulation to implement text_poke_bp() Jcc
> support, which is then used to teach inline static_call() about this form.
> 
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/text-patching.h | 31 ++++++++++++++++++
>  arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c        | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c       | 38 +++++-----------------
>  arch/x86/kernel/static_call.c        | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  4 files changed, 133 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)

I noticed this series was applied to x86/alternatives versus
x86/urgent, even though this appears to be a regression since 6.1, as
Erhard hit this issue in that tree.

Additionally, a new change in LLVM main [1] causes conditional tail
calls to be emitted even at -O2, so this breakage will become more
noticeable over time. Is it possible to expedite this to mainline so
that it can be backported to 6.1? If not, no worries, but I figured I
would ask :)

I have a backport of this series to 6.1 prepared already [2], where it
appears to work for me but I will get wider testing before sending it
after this is in Linus' tree (regardless of when that is). I figured it
would not hurt to have other eyes on it ahead of time though.

[1]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/ee5585ed09aff2e54cb540fad4c33f0c93626b1b
[2]: https://git.kernel.org/nathan/l/cbl-1800-1774-6.1

Cheers,
Nathan