[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180109000626.GE6718@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 16:06:26 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 11/10] x86/retpoline: Avoid return buffer underflows
on context switch
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 03:56:30PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:44 PM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > To guard against this fill the return buffer with controlled
> > content during context switch. This prevents any underflows.
>
> Ugh. I really dislike this patch. Everything else in the retpoline
> patches makes me go "ok, that's reasonable". This one makes me go
> "Eww".
>
> It's hacky, it's ugly, and it looks pretty expensive too.
Modern cores are quite fast at executing calls.
>
> Is there really nothing more clever we can do?
We could be a cleverer in selecting how many dummy calls to do.
But that would likely be fragile and hard to maintain
and likely be more complicated, and I doubt it would buy that much.
Don't really have a better proposal, sorry.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists