Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] x86/paravirt: remove 32-bit support from PARAVIRT_XXL

[Jürgen Groß <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 07.08.20 11:39, peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 10:38:23AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>
> > -# else
> > -       const unsigned char     cpu_iret[1];
> > -# endif
> >   };
> >   
> >   static const struct patch_xxl patch_data_xxl = {
> > @@ -42,7 +38,6 @@ static const struct patch_xxl patch_data_xxl = {
> >         .irq_save_fl            = { 0x9c, 0x58 },       // pushf; pop %[re]ax
> >         .mmu_read_cr2           = { 0x0f, 0x20, 0xd0 }, // mov %cr2, %[re]ax
> >         .mmu_read_cr3           = { 0x0f, 0x20, 0xd8 }, // mov %cr3, %[re]ax
> > -# ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> >         .mmu_write_cr3          = { 0x0f, 0x22, 0xdf }, // mov %rdi, %cr3
> >         .irq_restore_fl         = { 0x57, 0x9d },       // push %rdi; popfq
> >         .cpu_wbinvd             = { 0x0f, 0x09 },       // wbinvd
> > @@ -50,19 +45,11 @@ static const struct patch_xxl patch_data_xxl = {
> >                                     0x48, 0x0f, 0x07 }, // swapgs; sysretq
> >         .cpu_swapgs             = { 0x0f, 0x01, 0xf8 }, // swapgs
> >         .mov64                  = { 0x48, 0x89, 0xf8 }, // mov %rdi, %rax
> > -# else
> > -       .mmu_write_cr3          = { 0x0f, 0x22, 0xd8 }, // mov %eax, %cr3
> > -       .irq_restore_fl         = { 0x50, 0x9d },       // push %eax; popf
> > -       .cpu_iret               = { 0xcf },             // iret
> > -# endif
> I was looking at x86_64 paravirt the other day and found we actually
> have pv_ops.cpu.iret users there..
On x86_64 we have (without PARAVIRT_XXL):

#define INTERRUPT_RETURN        jmp native_iret

and with PARAVIRT_XXL this is basically a jmp *pv_ops.cpu.iret which
will then be patched to either jmp native_iret or jmp xen_iret.

On x86_32 INTERRUPT_RETURN was just "iret" for the non-paravirt case.
This is the reason for above dropping of the static patch data.

> So we want to change the above to also patch iret on x86_64 or do we
> need to fix x86_64 to not have pv-iret?
We want it to stay how it is. This will let both variants (PARVIRT y/n)
continue to work.


Juergen