[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPZXPQfrCQi5y0yS0kXNYajb_YyRGBPj1hhJEYEWWUsJxa-EHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 15:18:51 +0300
From: Martin-Éric Racine <martin-eric.racine@....fi>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>, x86@...nel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
1017425@...s.debian.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
regressions@...ts.linux.dev,
Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/speculation: Avoid LFENCE in FILL_RETURN_BUFFER on
CPUs that lack it
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 3:00 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 02:42:04PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 3:15 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 01:38:27PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > >
> > > > So that puts the whole __FILL_RETURN_BUFFER inside an alternative, and
> > > > we can't have nested alternatives. That's unfortunate.
> > >
> > > Well, both alternatives end with the LFENCE instruction, so I could pull
> > > it out and do two consequtive ALTs, but unrolling the loop for i386 is
> > > a better solution in that the sequence, while larger, removes the need
> > > for the LFENCE.
> >
> > Have we reached a definitive conclusion on to how to fix this?
>
> https://git.kernel.org/tip/332924973725e8cdcc783c175f68cf7e162cb9e5
Thanks.
Ben: When can we expect an updated kernel to security-updates at Debian?
Martin-Éric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists