Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] x86: limit amount of INT3 in IND_THUNK_*

2020-10-13 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 28/09/2020 13:32, Jan Beulich wrote: > There's no point having every replacement variant to also specify the > INT3 - just have it once in the base macro. When patching, NOPs will get > inserted, which are fine to speculate through (until reaching the INT3). > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich >

Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] x86: limit amount of INT3 in IND_THUNK_*

2020-10-08 Thread Roger Pau Monné
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 02:32:24PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > There's no point having every replacement variant to also specify the > INT3 - just have it once in the base macro. When patching, NOPs will get > inserted, which are fine to speculate through (until reaching the INT3). > >

[PATCH v2 6/6] x86: limit amount of INT3 in IND_THUNK_*

2020-09-28 Thread Jan Beulich
There's no point having every replacement variant to also specify the INT3 - just have it once in the base macro. When patching, NOPs will get inserted, which are fine to speculate through (until reaching the INT3). Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich --- I also wonder whether the LFENCE in