[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181129124404.2fe55dd0@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 12:44:04 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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, 29 Nov 2018 09:35:11 -0800
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 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".
>
Well, the current method (as Jiri mentioned) did get the OK from at
least Intel (and that was with a lot of arm twisting to do so).
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists