[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0110eba0-09cd-ace8-57d3-859475610b42@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 10:17:09 -0800
From: "Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [NEEDS-REVIEW] [PATCH v15 03/26] x86/fpu/xstate: Introduce CET
MSR XSAVES supervisor states
On 11/30/2020 10:12 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/30/20 10:06 AM, Yu, Yu-cheng wrote:
>>>> + if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK) &&
>>>> + !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_IBT))
>>>> + xfeatures_mask_all &= ~BIT_ULL(i);
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + if ((xsave_cpuid_features[i] == -1) ||
>>>
>>> Where did the -1 come from? Was that introduced earlier in this series?
>>> I don't see any way a xsave_cpuid_features[] can be -1 in the
>>> current tree.
>>
>> Yes, we used to have a hole in xsave_cpuid_features[] and put -1 there.
>> Do we want to keep this in case we again have holes in the future?
>
> So, it's dead code for the moment and it's impossible to tell what -1
> means without looking at git history? That seems, um, suboptimal.
>
> Shouldn't we have:
>
> #define XFEATURE_NO_DEP -1
>
> ?
>
> And then this code becomes:
>
> if ((xsave_cpuid_features[i] == XFEATURE_NO_DEP))
> // skip it...
>
> We can even put a comment in xsave_cpuid_features[] to tell folks to use
> it.
>
Yes, I will work on that.
Yu-cheng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists