[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181210235809.GB22352@amd>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:58:09 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
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 2018-11-29 11:11:50, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:08 AM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > What you can do then is basically add a single-byte prefix to the
> > "call" instruction that does nothing (say, cs override), and then
> > replace *that* with a 'int3' instruction.
>
> Hmm. the segment prefixes are documented as being "reserved" for
> branch instructions. I *think* that means just conditional branches
> (Intel at one point used the prefixes for static prediction
> information), not "call", but who knows..
>
> It might be better to use an empty REX prefix on x86-64 or something like that.
It might be easiest to use plain old NOP, no? :-).
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists