[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131127231305.GN32267@pd.tnic>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 00:13:05 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a text_poke syscall v2
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 03:04:41PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So sysexit/sysret doesn't count as a serializing instruction, no.
> But it doesn't need to, because *self*-modifying code doesn't need a
> serializing instruction, only a branch. It's only *cross*-modifying
> code that needs a serializing instruction.
>
> So the IPI is sufficient for the cross-modifying case, and the sysret
> is sufficient for the self-modifying case. And we also don't need
> to worry about "what happens if we schedule to another CPU, and
> self-modifying becomes cross-modifying", because the scheduling will
> then do the serializing instruction.
>
> So IPI for other CPU's (limited to the mm-mask) and just a system call
> for local CPU should be perfectly fine.
Cool, so basically an empty dummy syscall IPI-ed to all cores. With a
big fat comment on top.
:-)
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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