[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <124f4871-1275-47af-b513-297b870708b2@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 09:20:17 +0300
From: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] x86/bugs: Only harden syscalls when needed
On 11.04.24 г. 8:40 ч., Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Syscall hardening (i.e., converting the syscall indirect branch to a
> series of direct branches) may cause performance regressions in certain
> scenarios. Only use the syscall hardening when indirect branches are
> considered unsafe.
>
> Fixes: 1e3ad78334a6 ("x86/syscall: Don't force use of indirect calls for system calls")
> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Why fiddle with syscall mechanism if the bhb scrubbing sequence
mitigates bhb? AFAIU (correct me if I'm wrong) the original idea was to
have use syscall hardening instead of the BHB sequence but since it
became clear that's not sufficient bhb scrubbing completely subsumes the
direct branch approach in the syscall handler?
<snip>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists