Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 25 Jan 2018 18:53:34 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com,
        pjt@google.com, jikos@kernel.org, gregkh@linux-foundation.org,
        dave.hansen@intel.com, mingo@kernel.org, riel@redhat.com,
        luto@amacapital.net, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        ak@linux.intel.com, keescook@google.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/pti] x86/retpoline: Fill return stack buffer on vmexit
Message-ID: <20180125175334.7wlin4ftnqkq2fil@pd.tnic>
References: <1515755487-8524-1-git-send-email-dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
 <tip-117cc7a908c83697b0b737d15ae1eb5943afe35b@git.kernel.org>
 <20180125120743.ey32gvl5mjam4r2s@pd.tnic>
 <1516882849.30244.94.camel@infradead.org>
 <20180125124554.vdx7rrnfrxrzl2ng@pd.tnic>
 <20180125151024.bidjr26r667vs7h5@treble>
 <20180125155110.mw655b7fwgm7qqc7@pd.tnic>
 <1516896198.30244.133.camel@infradead.org>
 <20180125165646.ytc4upthpaqtwi45@treble>
 <1516899639.30244.145.camel@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1516899639.30244.145.camel@infradead.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 05:00:39PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> And the whole problem here is that patching it in with alternatives is
> painful on kernels < 4.1 because back then, we didn't cope with
> oldinstr and altinstr being different lengths.
> 
> And they don't want to fix *that* because kABI...

So if it were only because of the KABI, I would never sent a mail on the
list but would've done it in our tress and forgotten about it.

 [ And just to set one thing straight: I'm not the right person to
   complain to about KABI. ]

Now, I happen to think that those macros could be simplified regardless.
And I don't see *anything* wrong with that. Like making them more
readable, simpler, etc, etc. That's the only reason why I raised the
issue here. I mentioned the KABI because I didn't want to leave anything
out from the whole picture.

So forget the KABI angle and think: simpler, cleaner, more readable
macros.

Oh, and David, if while doing so I manage to add the alignment, then
*that* is even better.

Win-win-effing-win situation!

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.