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 10:29:14 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <>
To: Dan Williams <>
Cc:,,,,, Ingo Molnar <>,
	Andy Lutomirski <>, "H. Peter Anvin" <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/12] x86: remove the syscall_64 fast-path

* 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 <>



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.