[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180131100119.GJ2269@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 11:01:19 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/24] objtool: Another static block fail
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 09:12:21PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> Or, maybe we should just forget the whole thing and just stick with the
> dynamic IBRS checks with lfence. Yes, it's less ideal for the kernel,
> but adding these acrobatics to objtool also has a cost.
For now, IBRS seems off the table entirely. But no, I really don't want
to have to unconditionally eat the LFENCE cost in all those sites.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists