[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1518737310.7876.10.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 23:28:30 +0000
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard@...ma-star.at>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
bp@...en8.de, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
jpoimboe@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
jmattson@...gle.com, karahmed@...zon.de, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
pbonzini@...hat.com, rkrcmar@...hat.com, sironi@...zon.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Revert "x86/speculation: Simplify
indirect_branch_prediction_barrier()" crashes KVM guest
On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 00:12 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>
> [ 2.791518] Code: 8b 45 00 49 8b 7d 08 49 83 c5 18 31 d2 31 f6 ff
> d0 49 8b 45 00 48 85 c0 75 e9 eb b1 b9 49 00 00 00 b8 01 00 00 00 ba
> 00 00 00 00 <0f> 30 e9 68 fd ff ff 9c 58 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 89 c5 fa
> 66 0f 1f
23: b9 49 00 00 00 mov $0x49,%ecx
28: b8 01 00 00 00 mov $0x1,%eax
2d: ba 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%edx
32: 0f 30 wrmsr
The faulting instruction is the wrmsr itself. That shouldn't happen; if
the CPUID bit indicates that the MSR exists, then it should exist.
The reverted patch did use the C __wrmsr() macro which contained a
fixup for this GP# but it was just a side-effect of the "cleanup" — it
wasn't intentional because that really shouldn't happen. That looks
like a qemu bug as first glance.
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5213 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists