On Fri, 2018-10-26 at 09:30 -0700, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Sean Christopherson
> wrote:
>
> > And FWIW, I find the original code to be more readable since all
> > GRPs
> > are zeroed with the same method.
> I concur. I really do prefer the explicit xors to the input
On Fri, 2018-10-26 at 09:30 -0700, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Sean Christopherson
> wrote:
>
> > And FWIW, I find the original code to be more readable since all
> > GRPs
> > are zeroed with the same method.
> I concur. I really do prefer the explicit xors to the input
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Sean Christopherson
wrote:
> Since clearing the GPRs exists to mitigate speculation junk, I think
> we should keep the explicit XOR zeroing instead of deferring to the
> compiler. Explicit XORs will ensure the resulting assembly is the
> same regardless of
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Sean Christopherson
wrote:
> Since clearing the GPRs exists to mitigate speculation junk, I think
> we should keep the explicit XOR zeroing instead of deferring to the
> compiler. Explicit XORs will ensure the resulting assembly is the
> same regardless of
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:28:57AM +0200, Julian Stecklina wrote:
> Split the security related register clearing out of the large inline
> assembly VM entry path. This results in two slightly less complicated
> inline assembly statements, where it is clearer what each one does.
>
> Signed-off-by:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:28:57AM +0200, Julian Stecklina wrote:
> Split the security related register clearing out of the large inline
> assembly VM entry path. This results in two slightly less complicated
> inline assembly statements, where it is clearer what each one does.
>
> Signed-off-by:
On Thu, 2018-10-25 at 09:55 -0700, Jim Mattson wrote:
> Looking at the second asm statement and the comment that precedes it,
> my first question would be, "What about the registers not covered
> here?"
Good point. I'll make the comment a bit clearer.
> I'm also not convinced that the
On Thu, 2018-10-25 at 09:55 -0700, Jim Mattson wrote:
> Looking at the second asm statement and the comment that precedes it,
> my first question would be, "What about the registers not covered
> here?"
Good point. I'll make the comment a bit clearer.
> I'm also not convinced that the
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:28 AM, Julian Stecklina wrote:
> Split the security related register clearing out of the large inline
> assembly VM entry path. This results in two slightly less complicated
> inline assembly statements, where it is clearer what each one does.
>
> Signed-off-by: Julian
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:28 AM, Julian Stecklina wrote:
> Split the security related register clearing out of the large inline
> assembly VM entry path. This results in two slightly less complicated
> inline assembly statements, where it is clearer what each one does.
>
> Signed-off-by: Julian
Split the security related register clearing out of the large inline
assembly VM entry path. This results in two slightly less complicated
inline assembly statements, where it is clearer what each one does.
Signed-off-by: Julian Stecklina
Reviewed-by: Jan H. Schönherr
Reviewed-by: Konrad Jan
Split the security related register clearing out of the large inline
assembly VM entry path. This results in two slightly less complicated
inline assembly statements, where it is clearer what each one does.
Signed-off-by: Julian Stecklina
Reviewed-by: Jan H. Schönherr
Reviewed-by: Konrad Jan
12 matches
Mail list logo
