Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 07:22:26 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <>
To: Ingo Molnar <>
Cc: Dan Williams <>,,,,,, Ingo Molnar <>,
 Andy Lutomirski <>, "H. Peter Anvin" <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/12] x86: remove the syscall_64 fast-path

> On Jan 28, 2018, at 1:29 AM, Ingo Molnar <> wrote:
> * Dan Williams <> wrote:
>> Quoting Linus:
>>  "Honestly, I'd rather get rid of the fast-path entirely. Compared to
>>   all the PTI mess, it's not even noticeable.
>>   And if we ever get CPU's that have this all fixed, we can re-visit
>>   introducing the fastpath. But this is all very messy and it doesn't
>>   seem worth it right now.
>>   If we get rid of the fastpath, we can lay out the slow path slightly
>>   better, and get rid of some of those jump-overs. And we'd get rid of
>>   the ptregs hooks entirely.
>>   So we can try to make the "slow" path better while at it, but I
>>   really don't think it matters much now in the post-PTI era. Sadly."
> Please fix the title to have the proper prefix and to reference the function that 
> is actually modified by the patch, i.e. something like:
> s/ x86: remove the syscall_64 fast-path
> / x86/entry/64: Remove the entry_SYSCALL_64() fast-path
> With the title fixed:
> Reviewed-by: Ingo Molnar <>

I have a very similar but not quite identical version I'll send out shortly.  The difference is that I fixed the silly prologue.

> Thanks,
>    Ingo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.