On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 16:43 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 05.03.2024 16:15, Oleksii wrote:
> > I agree that upon examining the current state of the code around
> > these
> > functions, it appears safe to provide stubs. However, the reason my
> > patch was rejected is that it may not be entirely
On 05/03/2024 3:43 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 05.03.2024 16:15, Oleksii wrote:
>> I agree that upon examining the current state of the code around these
>> functions, it appears safe to provide stubs. However, the reason my
>> patch was rejected is that it may not be entirely safe, as Julien
>>
On 05.03.2024 16:15, Oleksii wrote:
> I agree that upon examining the current state of the code around these
> functions, it appears safe to provide stubs. However, the reason my
> patch was rejected is that it may not be entirely safe, as Julien
> pointed out that even with Arm, some functions
On Mon, 2024-03-04 at 17:50 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 04/03/2024 5:40 pm, Julien Grall wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > On 04/03/2024 17:07, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > On 04/03/2024 4:55 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 04.03.2024 17:46, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > On 04/03/2024 16:41, Jan
On 04.03.2024 17:10, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> --- a/xen/include/xen/nospec.h
> +++ b/xen/include/xen/nospec.h
> @@ -9,6 +9,29 @@
>
> #include
>
> +/*
> + * Protect a conditional branch from bad speculation. Architectures *must*
> + * provide arch_evaluate_nospec() for this to be effective.
>
On 04.03.2024 17:10, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> It is daft to require all architectures to provide empty implementations of
> this functionality.
>
> Provide evaluate_nospec() and block_speculation() unconditionally in
> xen/nospec.h with architectures able to opt in by providing suitable arch
>
On 04.03.2024 18:40, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 04/03/2024 17:07, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 04/03/2024 4:55 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 04.03.2024 17:46, Julien Grall wrote:
On 04/03/2024 16:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 04.03.2024 17:31, Julien Grall wrote:
>> On
On 04/03/2024 5:40 pm, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 04/03/2024 17:07, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 04/03/2024 4:55 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 04.03.2024 17:46, Julien Grall wrote:
On 04/03/2024 16:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 04.03.2024 17:31, Julien Grall wrote:
>> On
Hi Andrew,
On 04/03/2024 17:07, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 04/03/2024 4:55 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 04.03.2024 17:46, Julien Grall wrote:
On 04/03/2024 16:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 04.03.2024 17:31, Julien Grall wrote:
On 04/03/2024 16:10, Andrew Cooper wrote:
It is daft to require all
On 04/03/2024 4:55 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 04.03.2024 17:46, Julien Grall wrote:
>> On 04/03/2024 16:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 04.03.2024 17:31, Julien Grall wrote:
On 04/03/2024 16:10, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> It is daft to require all architectures to provide empty implementations
On 04.03.2024 17:46, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 04/03/2024 16:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 04.03.2024 17:31, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> On 04/03/2024 16:10, Andrew Cooper wrote:
It is daft to require all architectures to provide empty implementations of
this functionality.
>>>
>>> Oleksii
On 04/03/2024 4:41 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 04.03.2024 17:31, Julien Grall wrote:
>> On 04/03/2024 16:10, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> It is daft to require all architectures to provide empty implementations of
>>> this functionality.
>> Oleksii recenlty sent a similar patch [1]. This was pushed
Hi Jan,
On 04/03/2024 16:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 04.03.2024 17:31, Julien Grall wrote:
On 04/03/2024 16:10, Andrew Cooper wrote:
It is daft to require all architectures to provide empty implementations of
this functionality.
Oleksii recenlty sent a similar patch [1]. This was pushed back
On 04/03/2024 4:45 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 04.03.2024 17:10, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec.h
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec.h
>> @@ -23,20 +23,20 @@ static always_inline bool barrier_nospec_false(void)
>> return false;
>> }
>>
>> -/* Allow to
On 04.03.2024 17:10, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec.h
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec.h
> @@ -23,20 +23,20 @@ static always_inline bool barrier_nospec_false(void)
> return false;
> }
>
> -/* Allow to protect evaluation of conditionals with respect to
On 04.03.2024 17:31, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 04/03/2024 16:10, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> It is daft to require all architectures to provide empty implementations of
>> this functionality.
>
> Oleksii recenlty sent a similar patch [1]. This was pushed back because
> from naming, it sounds like the
Hi Andrew,
On 04/03/2024 16:10, Andrew Cooper wrote:
It is daft to require all architectures to provide empty implementations of
this functionality.
Oleksii recenlty sent a similar patch [1]. This was pushed back because
from naming, it sounds like the helpers ought to be non-empty on every
It is daft to require all architectures to provide empty implementations of
this functionality.
Provide evaluate_nospec() and block_speculation() unconditionally in
xen/nospec.h with architectures able to opt in by providing suitable arch
variants.
Rename x86's implementation to the arch_*()
18 matches
Mail list logo
