[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yw4SH2EuvnFJZHJs@lorien.valinor.li>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 15:35:27 +0200
From: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@...ian.org>
To: martin-eric.racine@....fi, 1017425@...s.debian.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>, x86@...nel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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: Bug#1017425: [PATCH] x86/speculation: Avoid LFENCE in
FILL_RETURN_BUFFER on CPUs that lack it
Hi Martin,
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:18:51PM +0300, Martin-??ric Racine wrote:
> 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-??ric 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?
When the update is ready to go. Likely the update for the next point
release for bullseye will contain the fix for this issue.
Regards,
Salvatore
Powered by blists - more mailing lists