From: David Laight <[email protected]>
To: 'Ammar Faizi' <[email protected]>, Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
Cc: Dave Hansen <[email protected]>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>,
Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>,
Tony Luck <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"Alviro Iskandar Setiawan" <[email protected]>,
Jiri Hladky <[email protected]>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 1/2] x86/delay: Fix the wrong asm constraint in `delay_loop()`
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 09:54:07 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
From: Ammar Faizi
> Sent: 01 March 2022 09:46
>
> The asm constraint does not reflect that the asm statement can modify
> the value of @loops. But the asm statement in delay_loop() does change
> the @loops.
>
> If by any chance the compiler inlines this function, it may clobber
> random stuff (e.g. local variable, important temporary value in reg,
> etc.).
>
> Fortunately, delay_loop() is only called indirectly (so it can't
> inline), and then the register it clobbers is %rax (which is by the
> nature of the calling convention, it's a caller saved register), so it
> didn't yield any bug.
Both the function pointers in that code need killing.
They only have two options (each) so conditional branches
will almost certainly always have been better.
I also wonder how well the comment
The additional jump magic is needed to get the timing stable
on all the CPU' we have to worry about.
applies to any modern cpu!
The code is unchanged since (at least) 2.6.27.
(It might have been moved from another file.)
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-01 9:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-01 9:46 [PATCH v4 0/2] Two x86 fixes Ammar Faizi
2022-03-01 9:46 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] x86/delay: Fix the wrong asm constraint in `delay_loop()` Ammar Faizi
2022-03-01 9:54 ` David Laight [this message]
2022-03-03 0:14 ` Ammar Faizi
2022-03-01 11:33 ` Alviro Iskandar Setiawan
2022-03-03 0:06 ` Ammar Faizi
2022-03-03 0:35 ` David Laight
2022-03-01 9:46 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] x86/mce/amd: Fix memory leak when `threshold_create_bank()` fails Ammar Faizi
2022-03-02 17:26 ` Yazen Ghannam
2022-03-02 23:20 ` Ammar Faizi
2022-03-02 23:27 ` Ammar Faizi
2022-03-03 1:58 ` Alviro Iskandar Setiawan
2022-03-03 2:07 ` Ammar Faizi
2022-03-03 2:32 ` Ammar Faizi
2022-03-03 2:51 ` Alviro Iskandar Setiawan
2022-03-07 0:27 ` Ammar Faizi
2022-03-09 20:55 ` Yazen Ghannam
2022-03-10 1:56 ` Ammar Faizi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox