[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1811291831560.21108@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 18:35:26 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <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>, mhiramat@...nel.org,
jbaron@...mai.com, David.Laight@...lab.com, bp@...en8.de,
julia@...com, jeyu@...nel.org, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86/static_call: Add inline static call implementation
for x86-64
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Does anyone know what the actual hardware semantics are? The SDM is not
> particularly informative unless I looked at the wrong section.
I don't think SDM answers all the questions there, unfortunately.
I vaguely remember that back then when I was preparing the original
text_poke_bp() implementation, hpa had to provide some answers directly
from inner depths of Intel ... see fd4363fff3 ("x86: Introduce int3
(breakpoint)-based instruction patching") for reference.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists