[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1373594948.17876.77.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:09:08 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
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 Fri, 2013-07-12 at 00:31 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> 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.
>
I'd like to caution on the side of safety. The extra sync really doesn't
hurt. Let's keep it in for a kernel release cycle to make sure
everything else works properly, then we can look at optimizing it.
-- Steve
--
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