|
Message-ID: <20180128091437.4lbll5bev7mgdpug@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 10:14:37 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, x86@...nel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/12] x86: introduce __uaccess_begin_nospec and ifence * Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote: > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h > @@ -124,6 +124,11 @@ extern int __get_user_bad(void); > > #define __uaccess_begin() stac() > #define __uaccess_end() clac() > +#define __uaccess_begin_nospec() \ > +({ \ > + stac(); \ > + ifence(); \ > +}) BTW., wouldn't it be better to switch the barrier order here, i.e. to do: ifence(); \ stac(); \ ? The reason is that stac()/clac() is usually paired, so there's a chance with short sequences that it would resolve with 'no externally visible changes to flags'. Also, there's many cases where flags are modified _inside_ the STAC/CLAC section, so grouping them together inside a speculation atom could be beneficial. The flip side is that if the MFENCE stalls the STAC that is ahead of it could be processed for 'free' - while it's always post barrier with my suggestion. But in any case it would be nice to see a discussion of this aspect in the changelog, even if the patch does not change. Thanks, Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.