From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, bp@alien8.de, mingo@redhat.com,
hpa@zytor.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com, x86@kernel.org,
samitolvanen@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/virt/tdx: Add ENDBR for low level SEAMCALL assembly functions
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 07:54:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ae0adccd-25d2-4dd3-b1b9-f7ba0c13367c@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250605142124.GT39944@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 6/5/25 07:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> -static inline u64 sc_retry(sc_func_t func, u64 fn,
> - struct tdx_module_args *args)
> +static __always_inline u64 sc_retry(const sc_func_t func, u64 fn,
> + struct tdx_module_args *args)
> {
> int retry = RDRAND_RETRY_LOOPS;
Practically, I can see how this works. If the compiler doesn't inline
sc_retry(), it stops being able to guarantee that the function pointer
value is known.
My only worry is that the compiler decides to be stupid for some other
reason, it could start generating indirect calls again.
Are we confident that __always_inline will keep the compiler from
generating indirect calls?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-05 14:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-04 0:38 Kai Huang
2025-06-04 19:46 ` Dave Hansen
2025-06-04 23:16 ` Huang, Kai
2025-06-04 23:23 ` Dave Hansen
2025-06-04 23:27 ` Huang, Kai
2025-06-04 23:57 ` Huang, Kai
2025-06-05 13:12 ` Huang, Kai
2025-06-05 13:10 ` [PATCH v2] x86/virt/tdx: Annotate TDX assembly to allow indirect calls Kai Huang
2025-06-05 14:07 ` [PATCH] x86/virt/tdx: Add ENDBR for low level SEAMCALL assembly functions Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-05 14:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-05 14:54 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2025-06-05 14:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-05 23:20 ` Huang, Kai
2025-06-05 23:23 ` Dave Hansen
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=ae0adccd-25d2-4dd3-b1b9-f7ba0c13367c@intel.com \
--to=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kai.huang@intel.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--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®