On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> It would certainly be possible to clear NT and retry IRET if IRET
> >> fails with NT set. This would have no overhead for anything relevant.
> >> That would be this alternative from my 0/2 email:
> >>
> >> - Don't filter NT on sysenter. Instead, filter it on EFI entry
> >> and modify the IRET code to retry without NT set if NT was set.
> >>
> >> Thomas hpa, etc: any thoughts?
> >
> > Filter it right away. That's solid and obvious. Anything else is just
> > complex and prone for future brown paperbag failures.
>
> Yeah, agreed. That's exactly what these patches do, although, if you
> put them in -tip and want to keep the stable CC, it's probably worth
> fixing the address (oops).
Even more oops as you failed to update it in your reply again ....
> > We get the context switch benefit from it, so there is some
> > compensation for the extra cycles.
>
> If we ever want those cycles back, I bet that the compat sysenter path
> could be trimmed down a lot. For example, I think that all of the
> zero-extension stuff is unnecessary now that we have the magic syscall
> wrappers for all (?) syscalls.
Emphasis on "(?)". So yes, once we verified that ....
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
