Hi Juergen,
On 16/01/2021 19:05, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 16.01.21 18:19, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Juergen,
On 16/01/2021 10:33, Juergen Gross wrote:
Add support to run a function in an exception handler for Arm. Do it
as on x86 via a bug_frame, but pass the function pointer via a
register (this needs to be done that way, because inline asm support
for 32-bit Arm lacks the needed functionality to reference an
arbitrary function via the bugframe).
Use the same BUGFRAME_* #defines as on x86 in order to make a future
common header file more easily achievable.
Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <[email protected]>
---
V4:
- new patch
V5:
- adjust BUG_FRAME() macro (Jan Beulich)
- adjust arm linker script (Jan Beulich)
- drop #ifdef x86 in common/virtual_region.c
V6:
- use register for function address (Arm32 build failure noticed by
Julien Grall)
Thank you for trying to sort out the issue on Arm32 :).
+/*
+ * Unfortunately gcc for arm 32-bit doesn't support the "i"
constraint, so
+ * the easiest way to implement run_in_exception_handler() is to
pass the
+ * to be called function in a fixed register.
There are a few uses of "i" in Linux Arm32 (such as jump label),
therefore I am pretty confident "i" works at least in some situation.
I did some more digging this afternoon. Our use of "i" is very similar
to Linux, so I decided to look at the GCC flags used.
It turns out that Linux will always build with -fno-pie on Arm (either
32 or 64) whereas Xen will let the compiler to decide (PIE is enabled
by on my compiler).
I wrote a small example to test the issue (based on Linux static key)
static void test(void)
{
}
int main(void)
{
asm volatile (".pushsection .bug_frames, \"aw\"\n"
".quad %0\n"
".popsection\n"
:: "i"(test));
return 0;
}
If I add -fno-pie on the command, the constraint error disappears.
On the previous version, you rewrote that didn't see any error. Is it
possible that your compiler is disabling PIE by default?
I think we need to code to be position independent for at least UEFI.
I also have plan to look at selecting the Xen virtual address at boot
time (this is necessary to solve some memory issue on Arm).
From a quick test, if I use -fno-pie -fpic, then the snipped above
will build fine. But it is not entirely clear whether the code would
still be position independent.
I need to have a look how Linux is dealing with KASLR given that
-fno-pie is used...
+ */
+#define run_in_exception_handler(fn) do
{ \
+ asm ("mov " __stringify(BUG_FN_REG) ",
%0\n" \
+ "1:"BUG_INSTR"\n" \
+ ".pushsection .bug_frames." __stringify(BUGFRAME_run_fn)
"," \
+ " \"a\",
%%progbits\n" \
+ "2:\n" \
+ ".p2align
2\n" \
+ ".long (1b -
2b)\n" \
+ ".long 0, 0,
0\n" \
+ ".popsection" :: "r" (fn) : __stringify(BUG_FN_REG)
); \
+} while (0)
My concern with this approach is we are going to clobber multiple
registers. On Arm64, this code will be replaced by:
13cc: 90000001 adrp x1, 0 <show_execution_state>
13d0: 91000021 add x1, x1, #0x0
13d4: aa0103e0 mov x0, x1
13d8: d4200020 brk #0x1
I guess we can optimize it to just clobber one register. Do we expect
the function executed to rely/replace the content of the registers?
No, it is just to have an interrupt frame to print out. Basically it is
just a "normal" function call with no parameters and return value via
an interrupt. So other than the BUG_ON() the registers are quite
uninteresting, it is nothing meant to be used for diagnosis AFAICS.
Ok. Let stick with your version for now then:
Acked-by: Julien Grall <[email protected]>
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
