[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <FFF73D592F13FD46B8700F0A279B802F47654398@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 08:01:47 +0000
From: "Prakhya, Sai Praneeth" <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V2] x86/speculation: Support Enhanced IBRS on future CPUs
> > Yes, that makes sense.
> > But on the machine, I see IBRS bit set on all cores. As you said,
> > someone else might be writing the MSR. I will try to find that out and will
> update the patch accordingly.
> >
> > I initially suspected it to be __ssb_select_mitigation() as I have
> > "spec_store_bypass_disable=on" in the kernel command line, but turns out it's
> not so.
> > I will update you more on this.
>
> There are lots of places like the firmware mitigation stuff and other things which
> write that MSR. And because the bit is set in x86_spec_ctrl_base it will be on at
> some point and stay so.
True! After a bit of experimenting with printk(), I see that it's being set by
intel_set_ssb_state() during systemd initialization.
>
> Writing it explicitely at the point where it is set makes it independent of other
> mechanisms which touch that MSR and Just Works.
Yes, that makes sense. I will add an explicit wrmsrl().
Just wanted to have a better understanding of how things work.
Regards,
Sai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists