[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YvKsS3QuOu4JVzZU@zn.tnic>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 20:49:47 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] entry: Add calls for save/restore auxiliary
pt_regs
On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 11:38:03AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> Thomas did a lot of work to make the entry code generic. So I was
> keeping that work consistent. This also helps to ensure I did not miss
> any places.
How about you worry about the other arches when you actually cross that
bridge?
> I don't believe this is correct because instrumentation is not enabled
> here.
Why do you have to run
arch_save_aux_pt_regs()
with instrumentation enabled?
Patch 5 does
+ struct pt_regs_auxiliary *aux_pt_regs = &to_extended_pt_regs(regs)->aux;
+
+ aux_pt_regs->cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
only?
Why does that need to run with instrumentation enabled?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists