[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTimqf7HY9AnMDjPr197m4LrA4qJNkg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 09:17:39 -0400
From: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86-64: Remove syscall instructions at fixed addresses
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu> wrote:
>
>> > You could start with picking the more compatible alternative
>> > instruction initially. I don't at all mind losing half a cycle of
>> > performance in that case ... this code should be secure first.
>>
>> The more compatible one is mfence, which in some cases could (I
>> think) be a lot more than half a cycle.
>
> I'd still suggest to do the mfence change now and remove the
> alternatives patching for now - if it's more than half a cycle then
> it sure will be implemented properly, right?
I don't know. I just cut 5 ns off the thing a couple weeks ago and no
one beat me to it :)
I'll take a look at how hard the patching will be.
--Andy
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists