[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180110013009.5ysxlkuhczuv7uwg@two.firstfloor.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:30:09 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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/retpoline: Fix NOSPEC_JMP for tip
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 06:45:34PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 1/9/2018 6:40 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The following patch fixes it for me. Something doesn't
> >>> seem to work with ALTERNATIVE_2. It adds only a few bytes
> >>> more code, so seems acceptable.
> >>
> >> Ugh. It's kind of stupid, though.
> >>
> >> Why is the code sequence not simply:
> >>
> >> ALTERNATIVE "", "lfence", X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE_AMD
> >> ALTERNATIVE __stringify(jmp *\reg), __stringify(RETPOLINE_JMP \reg),
> >> X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE
> >>
> >> ie make that X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE_AMD _only_ emit the "lfence", and
> >> simply fall through to what will be the "jmp *\reg" of the
> >> non-RETPOLINE version.
> >>
> >> Then just make sure X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE_AMD disables X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE.
>
> I think there are areas that rely on X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE being set
> even if X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE_AMD is set. For example, line 261 in
> arch/x86/entry/entry_32.S is only checking for X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE.
I audited the difference places. They all seem ok.
I assume you don't need FILL_RETURN_BUFFER on AMD. If not let me know
and we can add a X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE_COMMON
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists