Re: [Eclair false positive] Re: [PATCH] x86/msr: Rework wrmsr_safe() using asm goto()

[Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2025-05-25 12:52, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 25/05/2025 8:34 am, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > On 2025-05-22 15:49, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > On 22/05/2025 1:45 pm, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > > > On 2025-05-21 20:00, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > > > On 21/05/2025 3:36 pm, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > > > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h
> > > > > > b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h
> > > > > > index 0d3b1d637488..4c4f18b3a54d 100644
> > > > > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h
> > > > > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h
> > > > > > @@ -69,20 +69,20 @@ static inline void wrmsr_ns(uint32_t msr,
> > > > > > uint32_t lo, uint32_t hi)
> > > > > >  /* wrmsr with exception handling */
> > > > > >  static inline int wrmsr_safe(unsigned int msr, uint64_t val)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > > -    int rc;
> > > > > > -    uint32_t lo, hi;
> > > > > > -    lo = (uint32_t)val;
> > > > > > -    hi = (uint32_t)(val >> 32);
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > -    __asm__ __volatile__(
> > > > > > -        "1: wrmsr\n2:\n"
> > > > > > -        ".section .fixup,\"ax\"\n"
> > > > > > -        "3: movl %5,%0\n; jmp 2b\n"
> > > > > > -        ".previous\n"
> > > > > > -        _ASM_EXTABLE(1b, 3b)
> > > > > > -        : "=&r" (rc)
> > > > > > -        : "c" (msr), "a" (lo), "d" (hi), "0" (0), "i" (-EFAULT));
> > > > > > -    return rc;
> > > > > > +    uint32_t lo = val, hi = val >> 32;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +    asm_inline goto (
> > > > > > +        "1: wrmsr\n\t"
> > > > > > +        _ASM_EXTABLE(1b, %l[fault])
> > > > > > +        :
> > > > > > +        : "a" (lo), "c" (msr), "d" (hi)
> > > > > > +        :
> > > > > > +        : fault );
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +    return 0;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + fault:
> > > > > > +    return -EFAULT;
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > It turns out this is the first piece of Eclair-scanned code using 
> > > > > asm
> > > > > goto.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://gitlab.com/xen-project/hardware/xen-staging/-/jobs/10108558677
> > > > > (The run also contained an equivalent change to xsetbv())
> > > > >
> > > > > We're getting R1.1 and R2.6 violations.
> > > > >
> > > > > R1.1 complains about [STD.adrslabl] "label address" not being valid
> > > > > C99.
> > > > >
> > > > > R2.6 complains about unused labels.
> > > > >
> > > > > I expect this means that Eclair doesn't know how to interpret asm
> > > > > goto()
> > > > > yet.  The labels listed are reachable from inside the asm block.
> > > > That has been fixed upstream. I'll reach out to you when that fix
> > > > trickles down to the runners, so that you're able to test and push
> > > > that change.
> > > Oh, fantastic thanks.
> > >
> > > I'll hold off pushing until then.
> > >
> > > ~Andrew
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > both runners are now updated with the new images, so you can rerun the
> > tests.
> Both Eclair runs are unhappy, and not even completing analysis.
>
> https://gitlab.com/xen-project/hardware/xen-staging/-/pipelines/1835567532
>
> This is the same branch as before, plus your config change for R1.1
>
> ~Andrew
There might be something wrong with the image I used, it's erroring on a 
speculative call to the compiler. I rolled back to the previous images 
(without the fix for R2.6). I will investigate tomorrow.
Thanks,
 Nicola

--
Nicola Vetrini, B.Sc.
Software Engineer
BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicola-vetrini-a42471253