[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200402162548.GH20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 18:25:48 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
"Kenneth R. Crudup" <kenny@...ix.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [patch v2 1/2] x86,module: Detect VMX modules and disable
Split-Lock-Detect
Learn to trim your replies already!
On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 12:20:08AM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> On 4/2/2020 11:23 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > +bad_module:
> > + pr_warn("disabled due to VMX in module: %s\n", me->name);
> > + sld_state = sld_off;
>
> shouldn't we remove the __ro_after_init of sld_state?
Oh, that's probably a good idea. I can't actually test this due to no
hardware.
> And, shouldn't we clear X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT flag?
Don't think you can do that this late. Also, the hardware has the MSR
and it works, it's just that we should not.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists