Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:54:02 +0200
From:   peterz@infradead.org
To:     Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, x86@kernel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/special_insn: reverse __force_order logic
Message-ID: <20200902125402.GG1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200901161857.566142-1-namit@vmware.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200901161857.566142-1-namit@vmware.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:18:57AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:

> Unless I misunderstand the logic, __force_order should also be used by
> rdpkru() and wrpkru() which do not have dependency on __force_order. I
> also did not understand why native_write_cr0() has R/W dependency on
> __force_order, and why native_write_cr4() no longer has any dependency
> on __force_order.

There was a fairly large thread about this thing here:

  https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200527135329.1172644-1-arnd@arndb.de

I didn't keep up, but I think the general concensus was that it's
indeed a bit naf.