Re: [PATCH -tip] x86/mm: Use %RIP-relative address in untagged_addr()

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 11/17/23 11:43, Brian Gerst wrote:>>
> > Why don't we simply have %gs_base == 0 as an invariant for !SMP?
>
> The reason is stack protector, which is still stuck at %gs:40.  So
> GSBASE has to point at fixed_percpu_data, even on a UP build.  That is
> corrected by the patch series I recently posted, though.

Right, that problem is gone.

> > If we
> > *REALLY* care to skip SWAPGS on !SMP systems, we could use alternativesYep, that is 
> > to patch out %gs: and lock (wouldn't even have to be explicit: this is
> > the kind of thing that objtool does really well.) We can use
> > alternatives without anything special, since it only matters after we
> > have entered user spae for the first time and would be concurrent with
> > patching out SWAPGS itself.
>
> There is already support to patch out LOCK prefixes when running an
> SMP build on a single CPU (.smp_locks section).  Patching out the GS
> prefix would only work if the initial percpu area is not freed.
> Beyond that I don't think other optimizations are worth the effort,
> and would get very little testing.

Yes, that is basically my point.

	-hpa