[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1307120027570.29788@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 00:31:51 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] x86: introduce int3-based instruction patching
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > synchronization after replacing "all but first" instructions should not
> > be necessary (on Intel hardware), as the syncing after the subsequent
> > patching of the first byte provides enough safety.
> > But there's not only Intel HW out there, and we'd rather be on a safe
> > side.
>
> Has anyone talked to AMD or VIA about this at all? Did anyone else ever
> make SMP-capable x86?
If Boris can verify for AMD, that'd be good; we could then just remove one
extra syncing of the cores as a followup (can be done any time later, both
for alternative.c and ftrace in fact).
With the "extra" sync, the procedure is already verified to work properly
by ftace.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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