On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:47:50AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> We can even go a step further and add a static_cpu_has_safe thing which
> checks two features instead of one. The penalty we'd get is a single
> inconditional JMP which in the face of XSAVE* is nothing.
>
What was the argument against adding a check_alternative_input(...) so the
ex_table entry are managed inside the macro directly? It leaves less room
for errors and would still be reable IMO:
err = check_alternative_input_2(XSAVE,
XSAVESOPT, X86_FEATURE_XSAVEOPT
XSAVES, X86_FEATURE_XSAVES,
<inputs>, <outputs>, <clobbers>);
if (err)
do_something();
That hypothetical check_alternative_input_2() would call a rework of
check_insn() supporting an arbitrary numbers of inputs, outputs and
clobbers as drafted in my previous e-mail.
Quentin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
