|
Message-ID: <20200706182926.GH4800@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 20:29:26 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> Cc: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>, Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org> 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.