Re: [PATCH 09/11] x86, fpu: correct and check XSAVE xstate size calculations

[Dave Hansen]

On 08/27/2015 09:54 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> +static int xfeature_is_supervisor(int xfeature_nr)
>> +{
>> +	/*
>> +	 * We currently do not suport supervisor states, but if
>> +	 * we did, we could find out like this.
>> +	 *
>> +	 * SDM says: If state component i is a user state component,
>> +	 * ECX[0] return 0; if state component i is a supervisor
>> +	 * state component, ECX[0] returns 1.
>> +	u32 eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
>> +	cpuid_count(XSTATE_CPUID, xfeature_nr, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
>> +	return !!(ecx & 1);
>> +	*/
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
> 
> So if this CPUID is documented to work, why not use it to sanity check things?
> 
> I.e. do something like:
> 
> 	u32 eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
> 
> 	cpuid_count(XSTATE_CPUID, xfeature_nr, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> 
> 	/* Linux doesn't support supervisor states (yet): */
> 	WARN_ON_ONCE(ecx & 1);
> 
> 	return 0;
> 
> That would give us a gentle way to double check our assumptions here.

Actually, the newest state that you will see in the wild is for
Processor Trace, and it _is_ a supervisor state.  However, we don't use
it in Linux for our Processor Trace support, and Andi says we probably
never will.

So we probably shouldn't warn on it.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/