linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] Flipped jump labels

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140810154515.GA27199@gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 10 Aug 2014 17:45:15 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Flipped jump labels


* Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 08:13:03AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Wouldn't using STATIC_KEY_INIT_TRUE and static_key_true() [instead of
> > !static_key_false()] result in the same good code placement effects?
> 
> Nope, not really. static_key_true() is !static_key_false() and we're not
> changing anything, logically. ASM looks non-optimal here, in any case,
> with the "true" version.

Indeed - but could we use that interface to cleanly expose the 
arch_static_branch_active() code you've written, or do we need new 
variants?

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/