From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
hpa@zytor.com, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86, ia32entry: Use sysretl to return from sysenter
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 09:35:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150328083533.GA1183@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9414b4dfad7ad90b0315323be32d977867719bd4.1427493165.git.luto@kernel.org>
* Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> Sysexit is scary on 64-bit kernels -- sysexit must be invoked with
> usergs and IRQs on. That means that we rely on sti to correctly
> mask interrupts for one instruction. This is okay by itself, but
> the semantics with respect to NMIs are unclear.
At least judging by profiling output I think NMIs observe the STI
window of one instruction non-execution as well. (But I'm not 100%
sure.)
> Avoid the whole issue by using sysretl instead. For background,
> Intel CPUs don't allow syscall from compat mode, but they do allow
> sysret back to compat mode. Go figure.
>
> Oddly this seems to be 30 cycles or so faster. Avoiding popfq and
> sti will account for under half of that, I think, so my best guess
> is that Intel just optimizes sysret much better than sysexit.
>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
I like it, but no way is this automatic -stable material ... if proven
upstream we can forward it as a fix for SYSEXIT fragility, but not
automatically, IMHO.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-28 8:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-27 21:54 [RFC] x86, ia32entry: Use sysretl to return from sysenter Andy Lutomirski
2015-03-28 8:35 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2015-03-28 15:17 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-03-29 12:58 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-03-29 19:07 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-03-29 21:16 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-03-30 9:04 ` Borislav Petkov
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=20150328083533.GA1183@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dvlasenk@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox