[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADyq12w=oLp4a5CV6nCyrpijDQTeji5reE+w_F4Ha=qCJEsBGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:48:44 -0500
From: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Willis Kung <williskung@...gle.com>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"# v4 . 10+" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH stable 5.4,5.10] x86/fpu: Correct pkru/xstate inconsistency
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 4:42 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/15/22 13:32, Brian Geffon wrote:
> >> How was this tested, and what do the maintainers of this subsystem
> >> think? And will you be around to fix the bugs in this when they are
> >> found?
> > This has been trivial to reproduce, I've used a small repro which I've
> > put here: https://gist.github.com/bgaff/9f8cbfc8dd22e60f9492e4f0aff8f04f
> > , I also was able to reproduce this using the protection_keys self
> > tests on a 11th Gen Core i5-1135G7.
>
> I've got an i7-1165G7, but I'm not seeing any failures on a
> 5.11 distro kernel.
>
> How long does this take for you to reproduce?
It reproduces for me in just a few seconds. I'm not sure what could be
different about my setup, I've tested on a vanilla 5.10 kernel and it
reproduced the same way.
Brian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists