[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 20:29:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] add support for Clang LTO
On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 09:26:33AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> And perhaps more constructively, we do need to prioritize address and data
> dependencies over control dependencies. For one thing, there are a lot
> more address/data dependencies in existing code than there are control
> dependencies, and (sadly, perhaps more importantly) there are a lot more
> people who are convinced that address/data dependencies are important.
If they do not consider their Linux OS running correctly :-)
> For another (admittedly more theoretical) thing, the OOTA scenarios
> stemming from control dependencies are a lot less annoying than those
> from address/data dependencies.
>
> And address/data dependencies are as far as I know vulnerable to things
> like conditional-move instructions that can cause problems for control
> dependencies.
>
> Nevertheless, yes, control dependencies also need attention.
Today I added one more \o/
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.
