[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <E67F8616-B5D4-47E5-9017-A1B127C103EA@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 23:59:32 -0700
From: hpa@...or.com
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
"'Alexey Dobriyan'" <adobriyan@...il.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: pad assembly functions with INT3
On May 14, 2018 11:54:05 PM PDT, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>* hpa@...or.com <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
>> > I guess it won't try to speculatively execute the 'pad'
>instructions - but you
>> > can never really tell!
>> >
>> > David
>>
>> The CPU doesn't speculate down past an unconditional control
>transfer. Doing so
>> would be idiotic.
>
>I think, when it comes to speculative execution, our general
>expectation that CPUs
>don't do idiotic things got somewhat weakened in the past year or so
>...
>
>Thanks,
>
> Ingo
Sort-of-kind-of... the things that have cropped up were reasonable consequences of designing under a set of assumptions which turned out to be incorrect. Speculating through an unconditional control transfer did not make sense under those assumptions either.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists