[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55FAA66E.1070401@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:39:26 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
xen-devel <Xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86/paravirt: Fix baremetal paravirt MSR ops
On 17/09/2015 11:31, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
>> > Crashing the bootup on an unknown MSR is bad. Many MSR reads and writes are
>> > non-critical and returning the 'safe' result is much better than crashing or
>> > hanging the bootup.
> ... and prepending all MSR accesses with feature/CPUID checks is probably almost
> impossible.
That's not a big deal, that's what *_safe is for. The problem is that
there are definitely some cases where the *_safe version is not being used.
I agree with Ingo that we should start with a WARN. For example:
- give the read_msr and write_msr hooks the same prototype as the safe
variants
- make the virt platforms always return "no error" for the unsafe
variants (I understand if your first reaction is "ouch", but this
effectively is already the current behavior)
- change rdmsr/wrmsr/rdmsrl/wrmsrl to WARN if the read_msr and write_msr
hooks return an error
Paolo
--
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