[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <15734b32cecddde7905d3a97005a0c883383cc74.camel@surriel.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2025 20:09:51 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, David Laight
<david.laight.linux@...il.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner
<tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov
<bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "H. Peter Anvin"
<hpa@...or.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Mathieu
Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Josh Poimboeuf
<jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Dan Williams
<dan.j.williams@...el.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook
<keescook@...omium.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, "Paul
E.McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86: In x86-64 barrier_nospec can always be lfence
On Sun, 2025-02-09 at 13:57 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> So on x86, both read and write barriers are complete no-ops, because
> all reads are ordered, and all writes are ordered.
Given that this thread started with a reference
to rdtsc, it may be worth keeping in mind that
rdtsc reads themselves do not always appear to
be ordered.
Paul and I spotted some occasionaly "backwards
TSC values" from the CSD lock instrumentation code,
which went away when using ordered TSC reads:
https://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/2410.1/03202.html
I guess maybe a TSC read does not follow all the same
rules as a memory read, sometimes?
--
All Rights Reversed.
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.
