[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <4FC6540E0200007800086EF7@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:08:30 +0100
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: "Andre Przywara" <andre.przywara@....com>, <mingo@...e.hu>,
<jeremy@...p.org>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <stable@...r.kernel.org#3.4+>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/amd: fix crash as Xen Dom0 on AMD
Trinity systems
>>> On 30.05.12 at 16:50, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> 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!
The crash is not on the wrmsr instruction, but on the paravirt
layer finding a NULL pointer in one of the methods. Xen does
trap and emulate (possibly just ignore) both instructions.
Jan
--
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