Messages in this thread | | | From | Andrew Lutomirski <> | Date | Tue, 31 May 2011 09:17:39 -0400 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86-64: Remove syscall instructions at fixed addresses |
| |
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > * Andrew Lutomirski <luto@mit.edu> wrote: > >> > You could start with picking the more compatible alternative >> > instruction initially. I don't at all mind losing half a cycle of >> > performance in that case ... this code should be secure first. >> >> The more compatible one is mfence, which in some cases could (I >> think) be a lot more than half a cycle. > > I'd still suggest to do the mfence change now and remove the > alternatives patching for now - if it's more than half a cycle then > it sure will be implemented properly, right?
I don't know. I just cut 5 ns off the thing a couple weeks ago and no one beat me to it :)
I'll take a look at how hard the patching will be.
--Andy
> > Thanks, > > Ingo > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |