On 2016-08-22 14:56, Mark Rutland wrote:
Hi Brent,
Thanks for the thorough reply. Comments inline below.
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 01:32:47PM -0400, bdegr...@codeaurora.org
wrote:
On 2016-08-22 07:37, Mark Rutland wrote:
>* What problem does this patch address?
Initially, I set out to fix a co
Hi Brent,
Thanks for the thorough reply. Comments inline below.
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 01:32:47PM -0400, bdegr...@codeaurora.org wrote:
> On 2016-08-22 07:37, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >* What problem does this patch address?
>
> Initially, I set out to fix a control-flow problem, as I originally
On 2016-08-22 07:37, Mark Rutland wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 04:02:08PM -0400, Brent DeGraaf wrote:
Introduce explicit control-flow logic immediately prior to virtual
counter register read in all cases so that the mrs read will
always be accessed after all vdso data elements are read an
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 04:02:08PM -0400, Brent DeGraaf wrote:
> Introduce explicit control-flow logic immediately prior to virtual
> counter register read in all cases so that the mrs read will
> always be accessed after all vdso data elements are read and
> sequence count is verified. Ensure
Introduce explicit control-flow logic immediately prior to virtual
counter register read in all cases so that the mrs read will
always be accessed after all vdso data elements are read and
sequence count is verified. Ensure data elements under the
protection provided by the sequence counter are rea
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 03:39:11PM -0400, bdegr...@codeaurora.org wrote:
> Sorry, this is my first go at proper email etiquette. I think I've
> got it now.
Please just reply inline, with the previous email '>' prefixed, as with
this reply. Most mail clients do this for plain text email, and t
Sorry, this is my first go at proper email etiquette. I think I've got
it now.
--
"Can you explain the problem that you're fixing here, please?"
---
On 2016-08-11 11:54, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:37:44AM -0400, Christopher Covington wrote:
From: Brent DeGraaf
Prior gettimeofday code register read code is not architecturally
correct as there is no control flow gating logic enforced
immediately prior to the required isb.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:37:44AM -0400, Christopher Covington wrote:
> From: Brent DeGraaf
>
> Prior gettimeofday code register read code is not architecturally
> correct as there is no control flow gating logic enforced
> immediately prior to the required isb. Introduce explicit
> control-flo
From: Brent DeGraaf
Prior gettimeofday code register read code is not architecturally
correct as there is no control flow gating logic enforced
immediately prior to the required isb. Introduce explicit
control-flow logic prior to register read in all cases so that
the mrs read will always be don
10 matches
Mail list logo
