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:   Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:28:38 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     torvalds@linux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
        bp@alien8.de, tglx@linutronix.de, arjan@linux.intel.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dwmw2@infradead.org, hpa@zytor.com,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
        dwmw@amazon.co.uk, luto@kernel.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
        linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org,
        Joe Konno <joe.konno@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/pti] Revert "x86/speculation: Simplify
 indirect_branch_prediction_barrier()"
Message-ID: <20180213112838.v2xu4qdnend5tflv@gmail.com>
References: <1518305967-31356-3-git-send-email-dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
 <tip-f208820a321f9b23d77d7eed89945d862d62a3ed@git.kernel.org>
 <20180213094132.GF25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180213094132.GF25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> 
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:58:21AM -0800, tip-bot for David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
> > @@ -164,10 +164,15 @@ static inline void vmexit_fill_RSB(void)
> >  
> >  static inline void indirect_branch_prediction_barrier(void)
> >  {
> > +	asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE("",
> > +				 "movl %[msr], %%ecx\n\t"
> > +				 "movl %[val], %%eax\n\t"
> > +				 "movl $0, %%edx\n\t"
> > +				 "wrmsr",
> > +				 X86_FEATURE_USE_IBPB)
> > +		     : : [msr] "i" (MSR_IA32_PRED_CMD),
> > +			 [val] "i" (PRED_CMD_IBPB)
> > +		     : "eax", "ecx", "edx", "memory");
> >  }
> 
> Joe Konno pointed out that we now need the below line too, because we're
> using MSR_IA32_PRED_CMD in this header.
> 
> With the existing code that's not a problem per-se, but my objtool
> retpoline annotation things did do stumble over this.
> 
> Do we want to fold it into the objtool annotation patch or have it
> separate?

Separate would be better, it makes sense and is one problem less to worry about?

Thanks,

	Ingo