[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120530145155.GJ3207@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 10:51:55 -0400
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>, mingo@...e.hu,
tglx@...utronix.de, jeremy@...p.org, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
stable@...r.kernel.org#3.4+, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/amd: fix crash as Xen Dom0 on AMD
Trinity systems
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 07:50:15AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 05/30/2012 07:39 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 03:10:02PM +0200, Andre Przywara wrote:
> >> Because we are behind a family check before tweaking the topology
> >> bit, we can use the standard rd/wrmsr variants for the CPUID feature
> >> register.
> >> This fixes a crash when using the kernel as a Xen Dom0 on affected
> >> Trinity systems. The wrmsrl_amd_safe is not properly paravirtualized
> >> yet (this will be fixed in another patch).
> >
> > So with a rdmsrl_amd_safe and wrmsrl_amd_safe being implemented in
> > the pv_cpu_ops - would this patch even be neccessary?
> >
>
> That is still bogus; a better thing would be to implement the _regs
> interface. Even better would be to trap and emulate rdmsr/wrmsr!
That is what I meant - implement these two:
rdmsr_regs = native_rdmsr_safe_regs,
.wrmsr_regs = native_wrmsr_safe_regs,
Xen already traps the rdmsr/wrms - I believe it just didn't do
anything for this specific MSR.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists