Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86-64: Remove syscall instructions at fixedaddresses

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andrew Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> > You could start with picking the more compatible alternative 
> > instruction initially. I don't at all mind losing half a cycle of 
> > performance in that case ... this code should be secure first.
> 
> The more compatible one is mfence, which in some cases could (I 
> think) be a lot more than half a cycle.

I'd still suggest to do the mfence change now and remove the 
alternatives patching for now - if it's more than half a cycle then 
it sure will be implemented properly, right?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/