Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 20:29:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <>
Cc: Marco Elver <>,
	Nick Desaulniers <>,
	Sami Tolvanen <>,
	Masahiro Yamada <>,
	Will Deacon <>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
	Kees Cook <>,
	clang-built-linux <>,
	Kernel Hardening <>,
	linux-arch <>,
	Linux ARM <>,
	Linux Kbuild mailing list <>,
	LKML <>,,
	"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] add support for Clang LTO

On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 09:26:33AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> And perhaps more constructively, we do need to prioritize address and data
> dependencies over control dependencies.  For one thing, there are a lot
> more address/data dependencies in existing code than there are control
> dependencies, and (sadly, perhaps more importantly) there are a lot more
> people who are convinced that address/data dependencies are important.

If they do not consider their Linux OS running correctly :-)

> For another (admittedly more theoretical) thing, the OOTA scenarios
> stemming from control dependencies are a lot less annoying than those
> from address/data dependencies.
> And address/data dependencies are as far as I know vulnerable to things
> like conditional-move instructions that can cause problems for control
> dependencies.
> Nevertheless, yes, control dependencies also need attention.

Today I added one more \o/

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.