[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxOArsmQqu5B9GZY3c662T-dDEUU1e152GoyXY4Lr3V8A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:11:48 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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 1:08 PM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> There are a few of the form 'call *somefunc'.
>
> The existing code handles them not by virtue of the relocs, as I said,
> but by a simple delta of the old and new location of the instruction.
>
> But it only does so for the *first* instruction of the altinstr, if it
> happens to be a (4-byte?) branch.
Ugh. That's nasty.
Wouldn't it be much better to simply do it as part of relocation instead?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists