From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/speculation: Simplify and make CALL_NOSPEC consistent
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 00:49:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <497a3694-cb0d-4678-9622-d9443bf8a40d@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250226-call-nospec-v1-1-4dde04a5c7a7@linux.intel.com>
On 26/02/2025 9:03 pm, Pawan Gupta wrote:
> @@ -420,20 +420,28 @@ static inline void call_depth_return_thunk(void) {}
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>
> +/*
> + * Equivalent to -mindirect-branch-cs-prefix; emit the 5 byte jmp/call
> + * to the retpoline thunk with a CS prefix when the register requires
> + * a REX prefix byte to encode. Also see apply_retpolines().
> + */
Technically, both comments aren't quite accurate. __CS_PREFIX() emits a
conditional CS prefix in a manner compatible with
-mindirect-branch-cs-prefix, not the full 5/6 byte jmp/call.
> +#define __CS_PREFIX(reg) \
> + .irp rs,r8,r9,r10,r11,r12,r13,r14,r15; \
> + .ifc \\rs, \reg; \
Why are these escaped differently? Given they're all \r of some form or
another, I guess something is going wonky with __stringify(), but its
still weird for them to be different.
Do you have a fully pre-processed source to hand to see how CALL_NOSPEC
ends up?
~Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-27 0:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-26 21:03 Pawan Gupta
2025-02-27 0:49 ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2025-02-27 18:41 ` Pawan Gupta
2025-02-27 18:57 ` Andrew Cooper
2025-02-27 23:13 ` Pawan Gupta
2025-02-28 0:31 ` Pawan Gupta
2025-02-28 0:36 ` Andrew Cooper
2025-02-28 1:06 ` Pawan Gupta
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=497a3694-cb0d-4678-9622-d9443bf8a40d@citrix.com \
--to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®