[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1610a587-fe9e-28bd-dcd1-b9ec940c07ef@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 06:59:54 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
"asit.k.mallick" <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
"Van De Ven, Arjan" <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch RFC 5/5] x86/speculation: Add basic speculation control
code
On 01/10/2018 06:10 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Tim and Dave please comment too, Tim you originally wrote that code
> that leaves IBRS always on and never toggles it in the kernel entry
> point so you must know full well if Arjan is correct that you must
> toggle IBRS every time you enter kernel and in turn ibrs_enabled 2
> isn't valid mode.
Hi Andrea,
The "writing IBRS=1 acts as a barrier when it is already IBRS=1"
behavior is something which I misunderstood in the past. Thanks, Arjan,
for clearing it up.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists