[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH SpectreV1+L1TF v4 01/11] is_control_domain: block speculation


On 23/01/2019 13:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 23.01.19 at 12:51, <nmanthey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- a/xen/include/xen/nospec.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/nospec.h
@@ -58,6 +58,21 @@ static inline unsigned long array_index_mask_nospec(unsigned 
long index,
      (typeof(_i)) (_i & _mask);                                          \
+ * allow to insert a read memory barrier into conditionals
+ */

Please obey to the comment style set forth in ./CODING_STYLE.

+#ifdef CONFIG_X86
+static inline bool lfence_true(void) { rmb(); return true; }
+static inline bool lfence_true(void) { return true; }

This is a generic header, hence functions defined here should have
universally applicable names. "lfence", however, is an x86 term
(naming a particular instruction). I can't think of really good
alternatives, but how about one of arch_nospec_true() /
arch_fence_nospec_true() / arch_nospec_fence_true()?

We seems to use more the term "barrier" in common code over "fence". So how about arch_barrier_nospec_true/arch_nospec_barrier_true?


Julien Grall

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.