[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230601005624.ou3iqfbpbsfy3j4e@treble>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 17:56:24 -0700
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Cc: Jon Kohler <jon@...anix.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>,
"kvm @ vger . kernel . org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: remove LFENCE in vmx_spec_ctrl_restore_host()
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 01:50:48AM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 01/06/2023 1:42 am, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > So each LFENCE has a distinct purpose. That said, there are no indirect
> > branches or unbalanced RETs between them.
>
> How lucky are you feeling?
>
> You're in C at this point, which means the compiler could have emitted a
> call to mem{cpy,cmp}() in place of a simple assignment/comparison.
But it's only unbalanced RETs we're concerned about, per Intel.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists