[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87blolz251.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 01:52:58 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, hpa@...or.com,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/9] x86/split_lock: Rework the initialization flow of split lock detection
Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com> writes:
> On 3/24/2020 6:29 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> - switch (sld_state) {
>> + switch (state) {
>> case sld_off:
>> pr_info("disabled\n");
>> - break;
>> -
>> + return;
> Here, when sld_off, it just returns without
> setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT).
>
> So for APs, it won't clear SLD bit in split_lock_init().
Trivial fix:
static void split_lock_init(void)
{
split_lock_verify_msr(sld_state != sld_off);
}
You just need to remove the __init annotation from split_lock_verify_msr().
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists