[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFykL6+9kJjP2J-y3D7h7s3KhASVJ_cULa12zk5o37=OsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:05:08 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/alternatives: Fix optimize_nops() checking
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> Ok, so the problem was: how to fixup jumps which are not the first
> instruction which is being replaced but a following one in the
> instruction bytes with which we replace.
What jumps do you have that need to be fixed up?
I really think we should avoid having things like that.
Any jumps *within* the alternatives should have been handled by the
assembler already.
And jumps between the alternatives and other places? Why do they exist?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists