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

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 00:31 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> 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.
> 

I'd like to caution on the side of safety. The extra sync really doesn't
hurt. Let's keep it in for a kernel release cycle to make sure
everything else works properly, then we can look at optimizing it.

-- Steve


--
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/