[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190219094438.GV32534@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 10:44:38 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
catalin.marinas@....com, james.morse@....com,
valentin.schneider@....com, brgerst@...il.com, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
luto@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de, dvlasenk@...hat.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/x86: Save [ER]FLAGS on context switch
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 10:04:09AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Does that make more sense?
>
> It appears to me you're going about it backwards.
So how about you do a GCC plugin that verifies limits on code-gen
between user_access_begin/user_access_end() ?
- No CALL/RET
- implies user_access_end() happens
- implies no fentry hooks
- No __preempt_count frobbing
- No tracepoints
- ...
That way you put the burden on the special code, not on the rest of the
kernel.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists