[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161129140431.GB4520@krava>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:04:31 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Jan Stancek <jstancek@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] msr-trace.h:42 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 02:16:49PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 05:06:54PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > IOW, what's the worst thing that can happen if we did this below?
> >
> > We basically get rid of the detection and switch the timer to broadcast
> > mode immediately on the halting CPU.
> >
> > amd_e400_idle() is behind an "if (cpu_has_bug(c, X86_BUG_AMD_APIC_C1E))"
> > check so it will run on the affected CPUs only...
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Actually, here's a better version. The E400 detection works only after
> ACPI has been enabled so we piggyback the end of acpi_init().
>
> We don't need the MSR read now - we do
>
> if (static_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_AMD_APIC_C1E))
>
> on the idle path which is as fast as it gets.
>
> Any complaints about this before I go and test it everywhere?
>
> It builds and boots in my guest here ok, not that it means a whole lot.
>
> The good news is, I have collected a fleet of boxes which all have that
> erratum so testing should be pretty reliable. Something that doesn't
> happen everytime!
+1 one test server over here.. will check ;-)
jirka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists