[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <542C1B9A.4050704@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 08:19:54 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Sebastian Lackner <sebastian@...-team.de>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Anish Bhatt <anish@...lsio.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@...il.com>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86_64,entry: Filter RFLAGS.NT on entry from userspace
On 09/30/2014 10:24 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Sebastian Lackner
> <sebastian@...-team.de> wrote:
>>> + testl $X86_EFLAGS_NT,EFLAGS(%rsp) /* saved EFLAGS match cpu */
>>> + jz 1f
>>> + pushq_cfi $(X86_EFLAGS_IF|X86_EFLAGS_FIXED)
>>> + popfq_cfi
>>> +1:
>>> +
>>
>> Do you think it makes sense to change the order here, so that no jump happens if
>> NT is not set (which happens a bit more often, than the other way round)? Just a
>> guess though, haven't measured if pipeline effects have such a big influence in this
>> case. ;)
>>
>
> It should be immeasurable in a tight loop, since it will predict
> correctly almost every time. And, unless cfi state works across
> .pushsection (does it?), getting the cfi annotations right will be
> more complicated.
>
It does, actually... otherwise it would be almost impossible to use in a
lot of cases.
-hpa
--
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