Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 2 Sep 2022 19:03:33 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
        Johannes Wikner <kwikner@ethz.ch>,
        Alyssa Milburn <alyssa.milburn@linux.intel.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
        Joao Moreira <joao.moreira@intel.com>,
        Joseph Nuzman <joseph.nuzman@intel.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 37/59] x86/putuser: Provide room for padding
Message-ID: <YxI3Zf5drSHAkBL3@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20220902130625.217071627@infradead.org>
 <20220902130950.205726504@infradead.org>
 <CAHk-=wig7_=CpkvZXrbcM97pBGk5MCbVkA0yBGP2moiho-XS_Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wig7_=CpkvZXrbcM97pBGk5MCbVkA0yBGP2moiho-XS_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 09:43:45AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I don't hate this patch and it's probably good for consistency, but
> I really think that the retbleed tracking could perhaps be improved to
> let this be all unnecessary.
> 
> The whole return stack depth counting is already not 100% exact, and I
> think we could just make the rule be that we don't track leaf
> functions.
> 
> Why? It's just a off-by-one in the already not exact tracking. And -
> perhaps equally importantly - leaf functions are very very common
> dynamically, and I suspect it's trivial to see them.
> 
> Yes, yes, you could make objtool even smarter and actually do some
> kind of function flow graph thing (and I think some people were
> talking about that with the whole ret counting long long ago), but the
> leaf function thing is the really simple low-hanging fruit case of
> that.

So I did the leaf thing a few weeks ago, and at the time the perf gains
where not worth the complexity.

I can try again :-)