[PATCH v2 0/3] Add generic data patching functions

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 17/10/2023 à 08:56, Benjamin Gray a écrit :
> On 17/10/23 5:39 pm, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> Le 16/10/2023 à 07:01, Benjamin Gray a écrit :
>>> Currently patch_instruction() bases the write length on the value being
>>> written. If the value looks like a prefixed instruction it writes 8 
>>> bytes,
>>> otherwise it writes 4 bytes. This makes it potentially buggy to use for
>>> writing arbitrary data, as if you want to write 4 bytes but it 
>>> decides to
>>> write 8 bytes it may clobber the following memory or be unaligned and
>>> trigger an oops if it tries to cross a page boundary.
>>>
>>> To solve this, this series pulls out the size parameter to the 'top' of
>>> the text patching logic, and propagates it through the various 
>>> functions.
>>>
>>> The two sizes supported are int and long; this allows for patching
>>> instructions and pointers on both ppc32 and ppc64. On ppc32 these are 
>>> the
>>> same size, so care is taken to only use the size parameter on static
>>> functions, so the compiler can optimise it out entirely. Unfortunately
>>> GCC trips over its own feet here and won't optimise in a way that is
>>> optimal for strict RWX (mpc85xx_smp_defconfig) and no RWX
>>> (pmac32_defconfig).
>>>
>>> In the first case, patch_memory() is very large and can only be inlined
>>> if a single function calls it. While the source only calls it in
>>> patch_instruction(), an earlier optimisation pass inlined
>>> patch_instruction() into patch_branch(), so now there are 'two' 
>>> references
>>> to patch_memory() and it cannot be inlined into patch_instruction().
>>> Instead patch_instruction() becomes a single branch directly to
>>> patch_memory().
>>>
>>> We can fix this by marking patch_instruction() as noinline, but this
>>> prevents patch_memory() from being directly inlined into patch_branch()
>>> when RWX is disabled and patch_memory() is very small.
>>>
>>> It may be possible to avoid this by merging together patch_instruction()
>>> and patch_memory() on ppc32, but the only way I can think to do this
>>> without duplicating the implementation involves using the preprocessor
>>> to change if is_dword is a parameter or a local variable, which is 
>>> gross.
>>
>> What about:
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/code-patching.h
>> b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/code-patching.h
>> index 7c6056bb1706..af89ef450c93 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/code-patching.h
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/code-patching.h
>> @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ static inline int create_branch(ppc_inst_t *instr,
>> const u32 *addr,
>>    int create_cond_branch(ppc_inst_t *instr, const u32 *addr,
>>                   unsigned long target, int flags);
>>    int patch_branch(u32 *addr, unsigned long target, int flags);
>> -int patch_instruction(u32 *addr, ppc_inst_t instr);
>> +int patch_memory(void *addr, unsigned long val, bool is_dword);
>>    int raw_patch_instruction(u32 *addr, ppc_inst_t instr);
>>
>>    /*
>> @@ -87,24 +87,28 @@ int raw_patch_instruction(u32 *addr, ppc_inst_t 
>> instr);
>>
>>    #ifdef CONFIG_PPC64
>>
>> -int patch_uint(void *addr, unsigned int val);
>> -int patch_ulong(void *addr, unsigned long val);
>> +int patch_instruction(u32 *addr, ppc_inst_t instr);
>>
>>    #define patch_u64 patch_ulong
>>
>>    #else
>>
>> -static inline int patch_uint(u32 *addr, unsigned int val)
>> +static inline int patch_instruction(u32 *addr, ppc_inst_t instr)
>>    {
>> -    return patch_instruction(addr, ppc_inst(val));
>> +    return patch_memory(addr, ppc_inst_val(instr), false);
>>    }
>>
>> +#endif
>> +
>>    static inline int patch_ulong(void *addr, unsigned long val)
>>    {
>> -    return patch_instruction(addr, ppc_inst(val));
>> +    return patch_memory(addr, val, true);
>>    }
>>
>> -#endif
>> +static inline int patch_uint(void *addr, unsigned int val)
>> +{
>> +    return patch_memory(addr, val, false);
>> +}
>>
>>    #define patch_u32 patch_uint
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c
>> b/arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c
>> index 60289332412f..77418b2a4aa4 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c
>> @@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ static int __do_patch_memory(void *addr, unsigned
>> long val, bool is_dword)
>>        return err;
>>    }
>>
>> -static int patch_memory(void *addr, unsigned long val, bool is_dword)
>> +int patch_memory(void *addr, unsigned long val, bool is_dword)
>>    {
>>        int err;
>>        unsigned long flags;
>> @@ -378,6 +378,7 @@ static int patch_memory(void *addr, unsigned long
>> val, bool is_dword)
>>
>>        return err;
>>    }
>> +NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(patch_memory)
>>
>>    #ifdef CONFIG_PPC64
>>
>> @@ -390,26 +391,6 @@ int patch_instruction(u32 *addr, ppc_inst_t instr)
>>    }
>>    NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(patch_instruction)
>>
>> -int patch_uint(void *addr, unsigned int val)
>> -{
>> -    return patch_memory(addr, val, false);
>> -}
>> -NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(patch_uint)
>> -
>> -int patch_ulong(void *addr, unsigned long val)
>> -{
>> -    return patch_memory(addr, val, true);
>> -}
>> -NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(patch_ulong)
>> -
>> -#else
>> -
>> -int patch_instruction(u32 *addr, ppc_inst_t instr)
>> -{
>> -    return patch_memory(addr, ppc_inst_val(instr), false);
>> -}
>> -NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(patch_instruction)
>> -
>>    #endif
>>
>>    int patch_branch(u32 *addr, unsigned long target, int flags)
>>
> 
> Wouldn't every caller need to initialise the is_dword parameter in that 
> case? It can't tell it's unused across a translation unit boundary 
> without LTO.
> 

Ah yes you are right.

Christophe