From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 17:40:07 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5.4 regression fix] x86/boot: Provide memzero_explicit Message-ID: <20191007154007.GA96929@gmail.com> References: <20191007134724.4019-1-hdegoede@redhat.com> <20191007140022.GA29008@gmail.com> <1dc3c53d-785e-f9a4-1b4c-3374c94ae0a7@redhat.com> <20191007142230.GA117630@gmail.com> <2982b666-e310-afb7-40eb-e536ce95e23d@redhat.com> <20191007144600.GB59713@gmail.com> <20191007152049.GA384920@rani.riverdale.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191007152049.GA384920@rani.riverdale.lan> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Arvind Sankar Cc: Hans de Goede , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H . Peter Anvin" , Herbert Xu , Ard Biesheuvel , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephan Mueller * Arvind Sankar wrote: > With the barrier in there, is there any reason to *not* inline the > function? barrier_data() is an asm statement that tells the compiler > that the asm uses the memory that was set to zero, thus preventing it > from removing the memset even if nothing else uses that memory later. A > more detailed comment is there in compiler-gcc.h. I can't see why it > wouldn't work even if it were inlined. > > If the function can indeed be inlined, we could just make the common > implementation a macro and avoid duplicating it? As mentioned in another > mail, we otherwise will likely need another duplicate implementation for > arch/s390/purgatory as well. I suspect macro would be justified in this case. Mind sending a v3 patch to demonstrate how it would all look like? I'll zap v2 if the macro solution looks better. Thanks, Ingo