[PATCH 5/7] RISC-V: fix auipc-jalr addresses in patched alternatives
Heiko Stübner
heiko at sntech.de
Mon Nov 21 03:27:09 PST 2022
Hi,
Am Montag, 21. November 2022, 10:50:09 CET schrieb Lad, Prabhakar:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 4:50 PM Heiko Stuebner <heiko at sntech.de> wrote:
> >
> > From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner at vrull.eu>
> >
> > Alternatives live in a different section, so addresses used by call
> > functions will point to wrong locations after the patch got applied.
> >
> > Similar to arm64, adjust the location to consider that offset.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner at vrull.eu>
> > ---
[...]
> I have the below assembly code which I have tested without the
> alternatives for the RZ/Five CMO,
>
> #define ALT_CMO_OP(_op, _start, _size, _cachesize, _dir, _ops) \
> asm volatile(".option push\n\t\n\t" \
> ".option norvc\n\t" \
> ".option norelax\n\t" \
> "addi sp,sp,-16\n\t" \
> "sd s0,0(sp)\n\t" \
> "sd ra,8(sp)\n\t" \
> "addi s0,sp,16\n\t" \
> "mv a4,%6\n\t" \
> "mv a3,%5\n\t" \
> "mv a2,%4\n\t" \
> "mv a1,%3\n\t" \
> "mv a0,%0\n\t" \
> "call rzfive_cmo\n\t" \
> "ld ra,8(sp)\n\t" \
> "ld s0,0(sp)\n\t" \
> "addi sp,sp,16\n\t" \
> ".option pop\n\t" \
> : : "r"(_cachesize), \
> "r"((unsigned long)(_start) & ~((_cachesize) - 1UL)), \
> "r"((unsigned long)(_start) + (_size)), \
> "r"((unsigned long) (_start)), \
> "r"((unsigned long) (_size)), \
> "r"((unsigned long) (_dir)), \
> "r"((unsigned long) (_ops)) \
> : "a0", "a1", "a2", "a3", "a4", "memory")
>
> Now when integrate this with ALTERNATIVE_2() as below,
>
> #define ALT_CMO_OP(_op, _start, _size, _cachesize, _dir, _ops) \
> asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE_2( \
> __nops(14), \
> "mv a0, %1\n\t" \
> "j 2f\n\t" \
> "3:\n\t" \
> "cbo." __stringify(_op) " (a0)\n\t" \
> "add a0, a0, %0\n\t" \
> "2:\n\t" \
> "bltu a0, %2, 3b\n\t" \
> __nops(8), 0, CPUFEATURE_ZICBOM, CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZICBOM, \
> ".option push\n\t\n\t" \
> ".option norvc\n\t" \
> ".option norelax\n\t" \
> "addi sp,sp,-16\n\t" \
> "sd s0,0(sp)\n\t" \
> "sd ra,8(sp)\n\t" \
> "addi s0,sp,16\n\t" \
> "mv a4,%6\n\t" \
> "mv a3,%5\n\t" \
> "mv a2,%4\n\t" \
> "mv a1,%3\n\t" \
> "mv a0,%0\n\t" \
> "call rzfive_cmo\n\t" \
> "ld ra,8(sp)\n\t" \
> "ld s0,0(sp)\n\t" \
> "addi sp,sp,16\n\t" \
> ".option pop\n\t" \
> , ANDESTECH_VENDOR_ID, \
> ERRATA_ANDESTECH_NO_IOCP, CONFIG_ERRATA_RZFIVE_CMO) \
> : : "r"(_cachesize), \
> "r"((unsigned long)(_start) & ~((_cachesize) - 1UL)), \
> "r"((unsigned long)(_start) + (_size)), \
> "r"((unsigned long) (_start)), \
> "r"((unsigned long) (_size)), \
> "r"((unsigned long) (_dir)), \
> "r"((unsigned long) (_ops)) \
> : "a0", "a1", "a2", "a3", "a4", "memory")
>
> I am seeing kernel panic with this change. Looking at the
> riscv_alternative_fix_auipc_jalr() implementation it assumes the rest
> of the alternative options are calls too. Is my understanding correct
> here?
The loop walks through the instructions after the location got patched and
checks if an instruction is an auipc and the next one is a jalr and only then
adjusts the address accordingly.
So it _should_ leave all other (non auipc+jalr) instructions alone.
(hopefully)
> Do you think this is the correct approach in my case?
It does look correct on first glance.
As I had that passing thought, are you actually calling
riscv_alternative_fix_auipc_jalr()
from your errata/.../foo.c after doing the patching?
I.e. with the current patchset, that function is only called from the
cpufeature part, but for example not from the other patching locations.
[and a future revision should probably change that :-) ]
After making sure that function actually runs, the next thing you could try
is to have both the "original" code and the patch be identical, i.e.
replace the cbo* part with your code as well and then just output the
instructions via printk to check what the addresses do in both.
After riscv_alternative_fix_auipc_jalr() ran then both code variants
should be identical when using the same code in both areas.
> Note, I wanted to test with ALTERNATIVE_2() first to make sure
> everything is okay and then later test my ALTERNATIVE_3()
> implementation.
sounds like a very sensible idea to use the existing macros
first for verification :-)
Heiko
More information about the linux-riscv
mailing list