From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.zytor.com (terminus.zytor.com [198.137.202.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B79582E11CB; Sat, 14 Jun 2025 03:38:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.136 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749872327; cv=none; b=HTD7v7DnBWNJFXSM14e3DFEYUWXa2NIr849NX1PVgdh06dAkIbrhXaR8BmlQkjadf8o2phj9UHgYF38FD4fuzItnB4Mjow9rzbGwMjlLwXHcJWQy7XeLr00VFxmH6PairrXd2eI3qyxzMbdP3HD50lsZSQ+0NkU8RIwtp9hHrmc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749872327; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CTGpy3fNjoHFyN9tVmM18ZgNeMkkn1TEYFRM4ultmjM=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=b8foGSVvzc3jiU30OyNoJVLRGPMpQ41jFtaNyQ5IcAzr6SpavHLOBUgklnCahetUMOiKAxHuDFNp5Y6S+w++z32erCrNR4bfJj0vSl45QICIuMyTNidgZSVkHVVaRAMX+MCMgUaPjuLwvq6sCtqz0h5iyvfB3RLA96/f4gm7N4M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zytor.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=zytor.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=zytor.com header.i=@zytor.com header.b=LNEMusXf; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.136 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zytor.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=zytor.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=zytor.com header.i=@zytor.com header.b="LNEMusXf" Received: from [127.0.0.1] (c-76-133-66-138.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.133.66.138]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.zytor.com (8.18.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 55E3c2Z84045625 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 13 Jun 2025 20:38:03 -0700 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.zytor.com 55E3c2Z84045625 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zytor.com; s=2025052101; t=1749872284; bh=324yp862AH/g/TmhsrFlhcT3qA+FlMLkzgPM9owphjI=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=LNEMusXfakV909afh9NkF4LrrNnqNvAnybQPDBVtJavWVr5yXVPenz+5mTR5Kcoba ki/fXyzKOIZ+vJ0S16/KSNWsMOLYvKcdRqUIsFIWyceE/EZYRvH9xBcVVxBTfdKqfR 5iPnnjNaVc16hLgwlc34bNjv2d+8/rCB7NaoZZOJDmRoZpqo5SdVmld1eMkrvSFKl8 YG49ZlFfceYWAw+Lon5Dy1YHx/zBoz5Sa0W7M5TMcWPSq8HA1LvWZmoF+KFPYe86lk N+DxKkbhPAtlAZWIAOu2MVRZhe8t0YLzRbo+tAwmduPpaWpGZstnLX5M8pjWkI8Tsa 9QxiLnoX7eutg== Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 20:38:02 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" To: Xin Li , Sohil Mehta , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org CC: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, seanjc@google.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, brgerst@gmail.com, tony.luck@intel.com, fenghuay@nvidia.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] x86/traps: Fix DR6/DR7 inintialization User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <20250613070118.3694407-1-xin@zytor.com> Message-ID: <9D33DFBA-FE08-47B3-9663-7252B943F595@zytor.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On June 13, 2025 4:22:57 PM PDT, Xin Li wrote: >On 6/13/2025 3:43 PM, Sohil Mehta wrote: >> On 6/13/2025 12:01 AM, Xin Li (Intel) wrote: >>=20 >>>=20 >>> Xin Li (Intel) (3): >>> x86/traps: Move DR7_RESET_VALUE to >>> x86/traps: Initialize DR7 by writing its architectural reset value >>> x86/traps: Initialize DR6 by writing its architectural reset value >>>=20 >>=20 >> The patches fix the false bus_lock warning that I was observing with th= e >> infinite sigtrap selftest=2E >>=20 >> Tested-by: Sohil Mehta >>=20 >> I'll try it out again once you send the updated version=2E > >Thank you very much! > >>=20 >> In future, should we incorporate a #DB (or bus_lock) specific selftest >> to detect such DR6/7 initialization issues? > > >I cant think of how to tests it=2E Any suggestion about a new test? > You would have to map some memory uncached=2E