[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170426220448.sjsg4f7odacb2uz3@pd.tnic>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 00:04:48 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
x86@...nel.org, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, hpa@...or.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/amd: don't set X86_BUG_SYSRET_SS_ATTRS if forced to
zero
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 08:24:12PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> I'm not feeling strong about it. So if you want to test for
> X86_FEATURE_XENPV to avoid setting X86_BUG_SYSRET_SS_ATTRS I'm fine
> with it.
>
> Will send V2 with that change.
And remove the corresponding
clear_cpu_bug(c, X86_BUG_SYSRET_SS_ATTRS);
in xen_set_cpu_features().
So that we can set it once, only on !XENPV feature set.
/me looks again at the code...
Gah, except that we do
set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_XENPV);
and that runs as part of init_hypervisor() and it runs *after* c_init().
So, back to square one. :-\
So lemme try to explain again what I mean:
I'd like to have a generic way of detecting whether I'm running as a xen
guest at ->c_init() time and depending on the result of that detection,
to set X86_BUG_SYSRET_SS_ATTRS or not set it.
Does that make more sense?
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists