[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 14:52:59 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Luis Henriques <lhenriques@...e.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/10] x86: narrow out of bounds syscalls to sys_read
under speculation
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>
> At that point we're basically just back to the array_ptr() version
> that returned a sanitized pointer to an array element.
.. that one does an extra unnecessary 'andq' instead of the duplicated
cmp. But at least it avoids comparing that 32-bit integer twice, so
it's probably slightly smaller.
(And your code generation is without the "r" -> "ir" fix for the size argument)
Probably doesn't matter. But a "asm goto" would give you at least
potentially optimal code.
Linus
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.
