[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54FDDBF7.9080207@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 10:44:23 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
CC: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: entry_32.S: change ESPFIX test to not touch PT_OLDSS(%esp)
On 03/09/2015 09:44 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> And remember: those zero-cost out-of-order branches turn quite
> expensive if they *ever* mispredict. Even a 5% mispredict rate is
> likely to mean "it's better to have a data dependency chain".
>
> So it could easily go either way. I'm not convinced the old code is bad at all.
>
I'm inclined to side with Linus here. I'm hesitant to change this based
on pure speculation.
To answer Andy's question: I do believe we need espfix for V86 mode as well.
-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