[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180629190346.GO18979@romley-ivt3.sc.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:03:48 -0700
From: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] x86/split_lock: Align x86_capability to unsigned
long to avoid split locked access
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 06:35:39PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> Plus what enforces proper alignment for the other capability related
> u32 arrays?
Do you want me to enforce unsigned long alignment for all that are used by
locked BTS/BTR? There are quite a few/many those places. x86_capability
is one that is found in boot time. I tried to find split lock issues
in (very limited) tests; but so far only find the issue in x86_capability
in the tests.
Or you think we can push the patches upstream to allow broad test to find
and fix the issues?
Thanks.
-Fenghua
Powered by blists - more mailing lists