[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWMMQDa4T0m34GfkkYBxqwGUOg96aeWgiANRv9tCvQVRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 12:22:22 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Metzger, Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@...el.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [regression in -rc1] Re: [PATCH v6 2/8] x86/fsgsbase/64:
Introduce FS/GS base helper functions
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:13 PM Bae, Chang Seok
<chang.seok.bae@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:02 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:09 PM Chang S. Bae <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > With new helpers, FS/GS base access is centralized.
> > > Eventually, when FSGSBASE instruction enabled, it will be faster.
> >
> > Sorry for not catching this during review, but:
> >
> > > +void x86_fsbase_write_cpu(unsigned long fsbase) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * Set the selector to 0 as a notion, that the segment base is
> > > + * overwritten, which will be checked for skipping the segment load
> > > + * during context switch.
> > > + */
> > > + loadseg(FS, 0);
> >
> > ^^^
> >
> > what?
> >
> > > + wrmsrl(MSR_FS_BASE, fsbase);
> > > +}
> >
> > I don't understand what the comment is trying to say, but the sole caller so far
> > of this function is x86_gsbase_write_task(), and the code looks incorrect.
> >
> > Ingo, I think we need to address this during this merge window, probably by
> > removing the comment and the loadseg() call (and the same for
> > gsbase...inactive). But first, Chang, can you explain what exactly your intent is
> > here?
>
> It's coming from do_arch_prctl_64(). If you think it really makes confusion in
> x86_fsbase_write_cpu(), how about moving it to x86_fsbase_write_task()?
Why should ..write_task() magically change the index but only if it's
writing current?
I think you should move it all the way out to the caller
(do_arch_prctl_64()?) and we can see if it makes sense there.
>
> Chang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists