Re: [Xen-devel] Getting rid of invalid SYSCALL RSP under Xen?

[Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Andrew Cooper
<andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 23/07/2015 17:49, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Hi-
>
> Hi.  Apologies for the delay.  I have been out of the office for a few days.
>
>>
>> In entry_64.S, we have:
>>
>> ENTRY(entry_SYSCALL_64)
>>     /*
>>      * Interrupts are off on entry.
>>      * We do not frame this tiny irq-off block with TRACE_IRQS_OFF/ON,
>>      * it is too small to ever cause noticeable irq latency.
>>      */
>>     SWAPGS_UNSAFE_STACK
>>     /*
>>      * A hypervisor implementation might want to use a label
>>      * after the swapgs, so that it can do the swapgs
>>      * for the guest and jump here on syscall.
>>      */
>> GLOBAL(entry_SYSCALL_64_after_swapgs)
>>
>>     movq    %rsp, PER_CPU_VAR(rsp_scratch)
>>     movq    PER_CPU_VAR(cpu_current_top_of_stack), %rsp
>>
>> It would be really, really nice if Xen entered the SYSCALL path
>> *after* the mov to %rsp.
>>
>> Similarly, we have:
>>
>>     movq    RSP(%rsp), %rsp
>>     /* big comment */
>>     USERGS_SYSRET64
>>
>> It would be really nice if we could just mov to %rsp, swapgs, and
>> sysret, without worrying that the sysret is actually a jump on Xen.
>>
>> I suspect that making Xen stop using these code paths would actually
>> be a simplification.  On SYSCALL entry, Xen lands in
>> xen_syscall_target (AFAICT) and clearly has rsp pointing somewhere
>> valid.  Xen obligingly shoves the user RSP into the hardware RSP
>> register and jumps into the entry code.
>>
>> Is that stuff running on the normal kernel stack?
>
> Yes. The Xen ABI takes what is essentially tss->esp0 and uses that stack
> for all "switch to kernel" actions, including syscall and sysenter.
>
>>   If so, can we just
>> enter later on:
>>
>>     pushq    %r11                /* pt_regs->flags */
>>     pushq    $__USER_CS            /* pt_regs->cs */
>>     pushq    %rcx                /* pt_regs->ip */
>>
>> <-- Xen enters here
>>
>>     pushq    %rax                /* pt_regs->orig_ax */
>>     pushq    %rdi                /* pt_regs->di */
>>     pushq    %rsi                /* pt_regs->si */
>>     pushq    %rdx                /* pt_regs->dx */
>
> This looks plausible, and indeed preferable to the current doublestep
> with undo_xen_syscall.
>
> One slight complication is that xen_enable_syscall() will want to
> special case register_callback() to not set CALLBACKF_mask_events, as
> the entry point is now after re-enabling interrupts.

I wouldn't do that.  Let's just move the ENABLE_INTERRUPTS a few
instructions later even on native -- I want to do that anyway.

>
>>
>> For SYSRET, I think the way to go is to force Xen to always use the
>> syscall slow path.  Instead, Xen could hook into
>> syscall_return_via_sysret or even right before the opportunistic
>> sysret stuff.  Then we could remove the USERGS_SYSRET hooks entirely.
>>
>> Would this work?
>
> None of the opportunistic sysret stuff makes sense under Xen.  The path
> will inevitably end up in xen_iret making a hypercall.  Short circuiting
> all of this seems like a good idea, especially if it allows for the
> removal of the UERGS_SYSRET.

Doesn't Xen decide what to do based on VGCF_IN_SYSCALL?  Maybe Xen
should have its own opportunistic VGCF_IN_SYSCALL logic.

Hmm, maybe some of this would be easier to think about if, rather than
having a paravirt op, we could have:

ALTERNATIVE "", "jmp xen_pop_things_and_iret", X86_FEATURE_XEN

Or just IF_XEN("jmp ...");

As a practical matter, x86_64 has native and Xen -- I don't think
there's any other paravirt platform that needs the asm hooks.

--Andy

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel