[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1515055371.12987.83.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 08:42:51 +0000
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, tglx@...utronix.de
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, gregkh@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/12] x86/retpoline/entry: Convert entry assembler
indirect jumps
On Wed, 2018-01-03 at 18:00 -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> @@ -269,8 +270,9 @@ entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath:
> * This call instruction is handled specially in stub_ptregs_64.
> * It might end up jumping to the slow path. If it jumps, RAX
> * and all argument registers are clobbered.
> - */
> - call *sys_call_table(, %rax, 8)
> + */
> + movq sys_call_table(, %rax, 8), %rax
> + NOSPEC_CALL %rax
> .Lentry_SYSCALL_64_after_fastpath_call:
>
> movq %rax, RAX(%rsp)
Now I *know* you're working from an older version of my patches and
haven't just deliberately reverted the CET support (and alternatives?).
I fixed that mis-indentation of the closing */ and Intel were even
shipping that version in the latest pre-embargo patch tarball.
Should I post a new series and call it 'v3'? Was there anything
specific you changed other than the cosmetics like
s/CALL_THUNK/NOSPEC_CALL/ ? And obviously the fact that it stands alone
instead of being based on the IBRS microcode support?
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5213 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists