From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
peterz@infradead.org, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com,
dave.hansen@intel.com, arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] x86/speculation: Use IBRS if available before calling into firmware
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 12:17:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180207111739.GA8698@pd.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1517961794-14972-4-git-send-email-dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
Just some random thoughts:
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 12:03:13AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> +#define alternative_msr_write(_msr, _val, _feature) \
> + asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE("", \
> + "movl %[msr], %%ecx\n\t" \
> + "movl %[val], %%eax\n\t" \
> + "movl $0, %%edx\n\t" \
We'll never write anything except 0 in %edx?
> + "wrmsr", \
> + _feature) \
> + : : [msr] "i" (_msr), [val] "i" (_val) \
> + : "eax", "ecx", "edx", "memory")
So I'm not crazy about making it a separate macro because TBH it doesn't
look too generic to do that but then again what do I know, considering
recent history. :-)
[ Maybe I need to not look at the spectral meltdown for a
couple of weeks and simply take a break. ]
I guess it is fine if it is in nospec-branch.h and not prefix it with
alternative_ so that it doesn't give people ideas.
Oh and firmware_restrict_branch_speculation_start/end() is just too long
a name.
All IMHO, of course.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-07 11:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-07 0:03 [RFC PATCH 0/4] Retpoline / IBRS_ALL David Woodhouse
2018-02-07 0:03 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] Revert "x86/speculation: Simplify indirect_branch_prediction_barrier()" David Woodhouse
2018-02-07 0:03 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] KVM: x86: Reduce retpoline performance impact in slot_handle_level_range() David Woodhouse
[not found] ` <1518092274.3677.177.camel@infradead.org>
2018-02-08 12:28 ` [Fwd: [RFC PATCH 2/4] KVM: x86: Reduce retpoline performance impact in slot_handle_level_range()] Sironi, Filippo
2018-02-07 0:03 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] x86/speculation: Use IBRS if available before calling into firmware David Woodhouse
2018-02-07 11:17 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2018-02-07 11:29 ` David Woodhouse
2018-02-07 0:03 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] x86/speculation: Support "Enhanced IBRS" on future CPUs David Woodhouse
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180207111739.GA8698@pd.tnic \
--to=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dwmw@amazon.co.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.