[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221118182752.7ovqckwwle3azzrc@desk>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 10:27:52 -0800
From: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>, thomas.lendacky@....com,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, hdegoede@...hat.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
David.Kaplan@....com, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>,
antonio.gomez.iglesias@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] x86/pm: Add enumeration check before spec MSRs
save/restore setup
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 10:12:32AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>On 11/15/22 11:17, Pawan Gupta wrote:
>> To fix this, add the corresponding X86_FEATURE bit for each MSR. Avoid
>> trying to manipulate the MSR when the feature bit is clear. This
>> required adding a X86_FEATURE bit for MSRs that do not have one already,
>> but it's a small price to pay.
>>
>> Fixes: 73924ec4d560 ("x86/pm: Save the MSR validity status at context setup")
>> Reported-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
>> Cc: stable@...nel.org
>
>Thanks for fixing this up. The X86_FEATURE approach is a good one. The
>"poking at random MSRs" always seemed a bit wonky.
>
>Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists