kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH v5 04/12] x86: introduce __uaccess_begin

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180130065653.gsp7blb3jttd6e6t@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 07:56:53 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <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:

> > 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.
> 
> This 'for free' aspect is what I aiming for.

Ok.

> >
> > 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.
> 
> I'll add a note to the changelog that having the fence after the
> 'stac' hopefully allows some overlap of the cost of 'stac' and the
> flushing of the instruction pipeline.

Perfect!

Thanks,

	Ingo

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.