On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 03:54:42PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 04:46:41PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 03:02:08PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > One thing to consider is whether you need a speculation barrier after > > > set_fs(). Otherwise for code like: > > > > FYI, at least for x86 and powerpc I have a pending series to kill > > set_fs(). I'd love to see someone help with the arm/arm64 side, otherwise > > I'll try to get to it eventually. > > Is there anything in particular that's tricky, or do you just want > someone to look generally? From a quick grep arch/arm64/* looks clean, but > I suspect that's misleading.
Yes, it should be mostly trivial. I just bet the maintainers are better at optimizing the low-level assembly code with the variable address limit gone than I am. (See Linus comments on the x86 version for example). And I don't have a physical arm64 to test with so I'd have to rely on qemu for any testing.
