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 10:14:37 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <>
To: Dan Williams <>
	Tom Lendacky <>,
	Andi Kleen <>, Kees Cook <>,,,, Ingo Molnar <>,
	Al Viro <>, "H. Peter Anvin" <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/12] x86: introduce __uaccess_begin_nospec and ifence

* Dan Williams <> wrote:

> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
> @@ -124,6 +124,11 @@ extern int __get_user_bad(void);
>  #define __uaccess_begin() stac()
>  #define __uaccess_end()   clac()
> +#define __uaccess_begin_nospec()	\
> +({					\
> +	stac();				\
> +	ifence();			\
> +})

BTW., wouldn't it be better to switch the barrier order here, i.e. to do:

	ifence();			\
	stac();				\


The reason is that stac()/clac() is usually paired, so there's a chance with short 
sequences that it would resolve with 'no externally visible changes to flags'.

Also, there's many cases where flags are modified _inside_ the STAC/CLAC section, 
so grouping them together inside a speculation atom could be beneficial.

The flip side is that if the MFENCE stalls the STAC that is ahead of it could be 
processed for 'free' - while it's always post barrier with my suggestion.

But in any case it would be nice to see a discussion of this aspect in the 
changelog, even if the patch does not change.



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.