lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-31 15:21    [W:0.074 / U:1.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site