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

[Andrew Lutomirski]

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * 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?

I don't know.  I just cut 5 ns off the thing a couple weeks ago and no
one beat me to it :)

I'll take a look at how hard the patching will be.

--Andy

>
> 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/