[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wik5AfDs7qqjGHQ5vRBYkV8K6tFmPna3PdbwdzVwPGTsg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:35:11 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, mhiramat@...nel.org,
jbaron@...mai.com, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
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, Nov 29, 2018 at 9:13 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> No, we really do need to sync after we change the second part of the
> command with the int3 on it. Unless there's another way to guarantee
> that the full instruction gets seen when we replace the int3 with the
> finished command.
Making sure the call instruction is aligned with the I$ fetch boundary
should do that.
It's not in the SDM, but neither was our current behavior - we
were/are just relying on "it will work".
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists