lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 03/17] x86/cpu: Make srso_untrain_ret consistent
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 09:12:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> This does change srso_untrain_ret a little to be more consistent with
> srso_alias_untrain_ret (and zen_untrain_ret). Specifically I made
> srso_untrain_ret tail-call the srso_return_thunk, instead of doing the
> call directly. This matches how srso_alias_untrain_ret amd
> zen_untrain_ret also tail-call their respective return_thunk.
>
> If this is a problem this can be easily fixed and a comment added to
> explain -- but this way they all end with a tail-call to their own
> return-thunk, which is nice and consistent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
> arch/x86/lib/retpoline.S | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/arch/x86/lib/retpoline.S
> +++ b/arch/x86/lib/retpoline.S
> @@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ SYM_INNER_LABEL(srso_safe_ret, SYM_L_GLO
> int3
> /* end of movabs */
> lfence
> - call srso_safe_ret
> + jmp srso_return_thunk
> int3
> SYM_CODE_END(srso_safe_ret)
> SYM_FUNC_END(srso_untrain_ret)

I don't see a problem with it but I'd let David comment here.

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-08-10 14:01    [W:0.399 / U:1.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site