[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FC664E1.9050504@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 11:20:17 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>,
Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>, jeremy@...p.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/amd: fix crash as Xen Dom0 on AMD Trinity
systems
On 05/30/2012 11:17 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:00:23AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> OK. But there is still the general problem, no?
>
> With this patch xen crashes go away because they paravirt
> native_{read,write}_msr_safe.
>
> The other place where we use the amd_safe variants is an obscure K8,
> revC and earlier fix for _some_ BIOSen and this hasn't bitten us yet
> so I'm assuming people haven't run xen on such boxes yet. Does it need
> fixing? Probably, if we really really have to.
>
> Now, someone probably needs to paravirt the *safe_regs variants in case
> something else decides to use them. I don't know what to do here, do I
> want more paravirt code in there? No. I guess if this is done carefully
> and cleanly, then it should be ok but it can't be done like that - it
> needs to adhere to the current pv_cpu_ops thing which is already there.
>
I thought I was being told that Xen would trap and emulate the
rdmsr/wrmsr instructions. I guess they don't want to do that for the
handful of performance-sensitive MSRs there are, but those don't use the
*_regs variants.
-hpa
--
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