Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 10:29:14 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, x86@...nel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/12] x86: remove the syscall_64 fast-path * Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> 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 <mingo@...nel.org> 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.