[PATCH] powerpc/64s: POWER10 CPU Kconfig build option

[Nicholas Piggin]

On Fri Oct 7, 2022 at 4:07 AM AEST, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
> Le 23/09/2022 à 08:23, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
> > On Fri Sep 23, 2022 at 3:46 PM AEST, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Le 23/09/2022 à 05:30, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
> >>> This adds basic POWER10_CPU option, which builds with -mcpu=power10.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin at gmail.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> There's quite a lot of asm and linker changes slated for the next merge
> >>> window already so I may leave the pcrel patch for next time. I think we
> >>> can add the basic POWER10 build option though.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Nick
> >>>
> >>>    arch/powerpc/Makefile                  | 7 ++++++-
> >>>    arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype | 8 +++++++-
> >>>    2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Makefile b/arch/powerpc/Makefile
> >>> index 8a3d69b02672..ea88af26f8c6 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/powerpc/Makefile
> >>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/Makefile
> >>> @@ -192,9 +192,14 @@ ifdef CONFIG_476FPE_ERR46
> >>>    		-T $(srctree)/arch/powerpc/platforms/44x/ppc476_modules.lds
> >>>    endif
> >>>    
> >>> -# No AltiVec or VSX instructions when building kernel
> >>> +# No prefix or pcrel
> >>> +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-mno-prefixed)
> >>
> >> We have lots of code to handle prefixed instructions in code_patching,
> >> and that code complexifies stuff and has a performance impact.
> >> And it is only partially taken into account, areas like ftrace don't
> >> properly take care of prefixed instructions.
> >>
> >> Should we get rid of prefixed instruction support completely in the
> >> kernel, and come back to more simple code ?
> > 
> > I would rather complete prefixed support in the kernel and use pcrel
> > addressing. Actually even if we don't compile with pcrel or prefixed,
> > there are some instructions and we will probably get more that require
> > prefixed, possible we might want to use them in kernel. Some of it is
> > required to handle user mode instructions too. So I think removing
> > it is premature, but I guess it's up for debate.
>
> Well ok, in fact I only had code_patching in mind.
>
> Code patching is only for kernel text. Today code patching is used for 
> things like kprobe, ftrace, etc .... which really do not seems to be 
> prepared for prefixed instructions.
>
> If you are adding -mno-prefixed, it is worth keeping that code which 
> sometimes gives us some headacke ?
>
> Of course if there are plans to get real prefixed instruction in kernel 
> code anytime soon, lets live with it, in that case the support should 
> get completed. But otherwise I think it would be better to get rid of it 
> for now, and implement it completely when we need it in years.
>
> When I see the following, I'm having hard time believing it would work 
> with prefixed instructions in the kernel text:
>
> 	typedef u32 kprobe_opcode_t;
>
> 	struct kprobe {
> 	...
> 		/* Saved opcode (which has been replaced with breakpoint) */
> 		kprobe_opcode_t opcode;
>
>
> 	void arch_disarm_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
> 	{
> 		WARN_ON_ONCE(patch_instruction(p->addr, ppc_inst(p->opcode)));
> 	}

This actually should work. Prefixed instructions can be patched by
patching the prefix with a trap or pnop, and by patching a trap/pnop
back to the prefix instruction.

pnop will make the suffix interpreted corretcly and skipped. trap
handler will have to know it traps for a prefixed insn if it wanted
to resume after the instructioni. So it is enough to save/restore the
first 4 bytes of the instruction so long as there are checks to
ensure we don't try to patch a suffix (which it looks like there are).

Single-stepping pc-relative instructions at an alternate address
could be a bigger problem if I read the kprobes code correctly,
I don't really see how that would be handled with existing pc relative
instructions actually like branches and addpcis. Maybe it always
relies on being able to emulate those, but in that case we might not
emulate all pcrel instructions? I'm not sure. If that is what
kprobes relies on then it should be made more robust and have a
can_single_step_at_alternate_location() filter for that. R=1 prefix
could be caught there.

Thanks,
Nick