Re: selftests/x86/fsgsbase_64 test problem

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 01/29/18 08:37, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> That's what I thought, too, and the SDM does say that, but the SDM
> says all kinds of not-quite-correct things about segmentation.
> 
>> It is pretty much scratch space (I have
>> suggested using it for the gsbase once all those issues get sorted out,
>> because it lets the paranoid code do something like:
>>
>>         rdgsbase %rax
>>         push %rax       /* Save old gsbase */
>>         push %rax       /* Reserve space on stack */
>>         sgdt -2(%rsp)   /* We don't care about the limit */
>>         pop %rax        /* %rax <- gdtbase */
>>         mov (%rax),%rax /* GDT[0] holds the gsbase for this cpu */
>>         wrgsbase %rax
> 
> That will utterly suck on non-UMIP machines that have
> hypervisor-provided UMIP emulation.
> 

Is that a valid thing to optimize for, especially given that paranoid
entries aren't the most common anyway?

	-hpa