[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180207111739.GA8698@pd.tnic>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 12:17:39 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] x86/speculation: Use IBRS if available before
calling into firmware
Just some random thoughts:
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 12:03:13AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> +#define alternative_msr_write(_msr, _val, _feature) \
> + asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE("", \
> + "movl %[msr], %%ecx\n\t" \
> + "movl %[val], %%eax\n\t" \
> + "movl $0, %%edx\n\t" \
We'll never write anything except 0 in %edx?
> + "wrmsr", \
> + _feature) \
> + : : [msr] "i" (_msr), [val] "i" (_val) \
> + : "eax", "ecx", "edx", "memory")
So I'm not crazy about making it a separate macro because TBH it doesn't
look too generic to do that but then again what do I know, considering
recent history. :-)
[ Maybe I need to not look at the spectral meltdown for a
couple of weeks and simply take a break. ]
I guess it is fine if it is in nospec-branch.h and not prefix it with
alternative_ so that it doesn't give people ideas.
Oh and firmware_restrict_branch_speculation_start/end() is just too long
a name.
All IMHO, of course.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists