[PATCH -v2] x86/entry/64: Correct the comment over SAVE_AND_SET_GSBASE
From: Borislav Petkov
Date: Fri Aug 21 2020 - 05:07:20 EST
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 06:04:50PM +0000, Bae, Chang Seok wrote:
> I think somehow the “MSR write” made confusion. Our conclusion was the
> same as Thomas' that no FENCE is needed here.
Ok, here's v2 with a corrected comment:
---
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx>
Add the proper explanation why an LFENCE is not needed in the FSGSBASE
case.
Fixes: c82965f9e530 ("x86/entry/64: Handle FSGSBASE enabled paranoid entry/exit")
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx>
---
arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
index 26fc9b42fadc..5c5d234d968d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
+++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
@@ -840,8 +840,9 @@ SYM_CODE_START_LOCAL(paranoid_entry)
* retrieve and set the current CPUs kernel GSBASE. The stored value
* has to be restored in paranoid_exit unconditionally.
*
- * The MSR write ensures that no subsequent load is based on a
- * mispredicted GSBASE. No extra FENCE required.
+ * The unconditional write to GS base below ensures that no subsequent
+ * loads based on a mispredicted GS base can happen, therefore no LFENCE
+ * is needed here.
*/
SAVE_AND_SET_GSBASE scratch_reg=%rax save_reg=%rbx
ret
--
2.21.0
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette