Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/4] net: mitigate retpoline overhead

2018-12-16 Thread Willem de Bruijn
On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 2:19 PM David Miller wrote: > > From: Paolo Abeni > Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 19:55:40 +0100 > > > Again, I messed it! I'm really sorry to waste everybody's time. > > I was unable to give proper coverage with different configs. I tested > > vs.: > > > > CONFIG_IPV6=ymn > >

Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/4] net: mitigate retpoline overhead

2018-12-16 Thread David Miller
From: Paolo Abeni Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 19:55:40 +0100 > Again, I messed it! I'm really sorry to waste everybody's time. > I was unable to give proper coverage with different configs. I tested > vs.: > > CONFIG_IPV6=ymn > CONFIG_INET=yn > > but > > # CONFIG_RETPOLINE is not set > > fooled

Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/4] net: mitigate retpoline overhead

2018-12-16 Thread Paolo Abeni
On Sat, 2018-12-15 at 13:23 -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: Paolo Abeni > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 11:51:56 +0100 > > > The spectre v2 counter-measures, aka retpolines, are a source of measurable > > overhead[1]. We can partially address that when the function pointer refers > > to > > a

Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/4] net: mitigate retpoline overhead

2018-12-15 Thread David Miller
From: Paolo Abeni Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 11:51:56 +0100 > The spectre v2 counter-measures, aka retpolines, are a source of measurable > overhead[1]. We can partially address that when the function pointer refers to > a builtin symbol resorting to a list of tests vs well-known builtin function >