Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] x86: introduce int3-based instruction patching

[Jiri Kosina]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> > synchronization after replacing "all but first" instructions should not
> > be necessary (on Intel hardware), as the syncing after the subsequent
> > patching of the first byte provides enough safety.
> > But there's not only Intel HW out there, and we'd rather be on a safe
> > side.
> 
> Has anyone talked to AMD or VIA about this at all?  Did anyone else ever
> make SMP-capable x86?

If Boris can verify for AMD, that'd be good; we could then just remove one 
extra syncing of the cores as a followup (can be done any time later, both 
for alternative.c and ftrace in fact).

With the "extra" sync, the procedure is already verified to work properly 
by ftace.

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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/