lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC rebase 3/9] powerpc/64: Use barrier_nospec in syscall entry
Date
Hi Michal,

Thanks for working on this series in the absence of any documentation.

Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de> writes:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 15:18:23 +1000
> Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 20:15:52 +0100
>> Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@suse.de> wrote:
>>
>> > On powerpc syscall entry is done in assembly so patch in an explicit
>> > barrier_nospec.
>>
>> Same comment as Linus for this -- the barriers are before the branch
>> here, so is it possible the branch instruction can be speculative
>> while the index is used to load the syscall table?
>
> As far as I understand barriers they separate code before the barrier
> and code after the barrier.
>
> So inserting barrier_nospec after cmpldi means that the result of the
> cmpldi has to be known before any instruction following barrier_nospec
> that depends on the result can be executed.

That would make sense, but I don't think that's how the barrier's been
defined.

I don't have a formal spec for it (yet), but what I do have indicates it
only orders older branches vs future instructions.

> However, you have probably knowledge of the powerpc implementation of
> the barrier so if the semantic is actually different then please
> enlighten me.

We have some knowledge, but only some :)

It's not necessarily implemented the same way on each chip revision, so
it's not entirely clear what the formal semantics will be vs what we are
seeing in current implementations. But I think it's safe to say it
should always go after the branch that might be speculatively executed.

Will try and get some better documentation for you.

cheers

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-16 14:29    [W:0.105 / U:2.356 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site