[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1801042137560.11852@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 21:39:24 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] asm/generic: introduce if_nospec and
nospec_barrier
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018, Alan Cox wrote:
> You never go from one user process to another except via the kernel. We
> have no hardware scheduling going on. That means that if the kernel
> and/or CPU imposes the correct speculation barriers you can't attack
> anyone but yourself.
So how does this work on HT with the shared BTB? There is no context
switch (and hence no IBPB) happening between the threads sharing it.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists