[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150423154926.GM28327@pd.tnic>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:49:26 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, 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>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/asm/entry/64: better check for canonical address
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 08:41:15AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I was rather vague there. Let me try again:
>
> If anyone in the AMD camp really cared, we could add a new bug flag
> X86_BUG_SYSRET_NEEDS_CANONICAL_RCX and set it on Intel chips only, so
> we could use alternatives to patch out the check when running on
> sensible AMD hardware. This would speed the slow path up by a couple
> of cycles on AMD chips.
>
> Does that make more sense? We could call it
> X86_BUG_SYSRET_NEEDS_CANONICAL_RIP if that makes more sense.
Actually "...NEEDS_CANONICAL_RCX" makes more sense as this is what we're
going to patch out eventually, if it makes sense - the RIP canonicalness
test is being done as part of SYSRET, just RCX is not being tested.
Tell you what - how about I perf stat this first by commenting out that
couple of instructions on AMD to see whether it brings anything.
Got an idea for a workload other than a kernel build? :-)
Although a kernel build should do a lot of syscalls too...
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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