Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] x86: record SSP at non-guest entry points

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/04/2026 1:22 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> We will want to use that value for call trace generation, and likely
> also to eliminate the somewhat fragile shadow stack searching done in
> fixup_exception_return(). For those purposes, guest-only entry points do
> not need to record that value.
>
> To keep the saving code simple, record our own SSP that corresponds to
> an exception frame, pointing to the top of the shadow stack counterpart
> of what the CPU has saved on the regular stack. Consuming code can then
> work its way from there.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> For PUSH_AND_CLEAR_GPRS and POP_GPRS, putting the new field right next to
> the error code isn't entirely nice; putting it ahead of %r15 would entail
> other changes, though. An option may be to not make SSP handling part of
> the macros in the first place. Thoughts?

I have a firm dislike for SAVE/RESTORE_ALL, both for their substantial
complexity/inefficiency, and mixing of unrelated tasks.

I have several series trying to purge them.  I suppose I really ought to
try and finish this off properly.

While classing SSP as a "register" is probably fine, the ssp= parameter
(and particular it's asymmetric nature) is on the wrong side of the
"complex" argument IMO.

> For POP_GPRS, does it really matter that it doesn't alter EFLAGS? 

Yes.  The SYSCALL fix for one (reviewed, but waiting on final testing
before I commit).

Then the VT-x code when swapped to use POP_GPRS.


To take a step back, you say that putting it ahead of %r15 would entail
other changes.  What changes?

The resulting asm would be far cleaner.  It would be an rdssp;push on
one side, and a pop into any register on the other side.  Furthermore,
given that the ssp= doesn't exclude storing it for some user frames,
just store it for all.  It's one push/pop into a hot cacheline, and
makes a substantial reduction in complexity.

~Andrew