[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1811280703490.21108@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 07:05:18 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
Waiman Long <longman9394@...il.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Dave Stewart <david.c.stewart@...el.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 20/24] x86/speculation: Split out TIF update
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Does it really have to?
> >
> > We need this special handling only if the next task has TIF_SPEC_UPDATE
> > set, which is one-off event globally (when seccomp marks all its threads
> > so due to seccomp filter change), and once all the TIF_SPEC_UPDATE tasks
> > schedule at least once, we're in a consistent state again and don't need
> > this, as every running task will then have its TIF consistent with MSR
> > value.
>
> And how so? You set the bits is spec_flags. And then you set the TIF_UPDATE
> bit which is evaluated once.
Yeah, that was a complete brainfart on my side, sorry for the noise,
disregard that crap. I blame it all on the dentist appointment I went
through before writing the patch :p
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists