[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181129171539.GD9027@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 18:15:39 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, julia@...com, jeyu@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86/static_call: Add inline static call
implementation for x86-64
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 08:59:31AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> If you make it conditional on CPL, do it for 32-bit as well, add
> comments,
> and convince yourself that there isn’t a better solution
> (like pointing IP at a stub that retpolines to the target by reading
> the function pointer, a la the unoptimizable version), then okay, I
> guess, with only a small amount of grumbling.
Right; so we _could_ grow the trampoline with a retpoline indirect call
and ret. It just makes the trampoline a whole lot bigger, but it could
work.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists