[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150218212013.GB22696@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 22:20:13 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/12] x86, alternatives: Instruction padding and more
robust JMPs
* Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
>
> [ Changelog is in version-increasing number so that one can follow the
> evolution of the patch set in a more natural way (i.e., latest version
> comes at the end. ]
>
> v0:
>
> this is something which hpa and I talked about recently:
> the ability for the alternatives code to add padding to
> the original instruction in case the replacement is
> longer and also to be able to simply write "jmp" and not
> care about which JMP exactly the compiler generates and
> whether the relative offsets are correct.
>
> So this is a stab at it, it seems to boot in kvm here but
> it needs more staring to make sure we're actually
> generating the proper code at all times.
Ok, this looks really cool.
Do you have any stats about how many such (affected) patch
sites we have in say the 64-bit defconfig kernel?
I.e. what's the scope of this optimization?
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists