From: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, jon.grimm@amd.com,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Thomas Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/fpu: Warn only when CPU-provided sizes less than struct declaration
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 15:14:17 +0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ccee3768-c160-25b6-362f-de6cdd2b78c2@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191203103455.pvm5jrwkksygmhd7@linutronix.de>
Sebastian,
On 12/3/19 5:34 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-12-03 04:01:28 [-0500], Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>> The current XCHECK_SZ macro warns if the XFEATURE size reported
>> by CPUID does not match the size of kernel structure. However, depending
>> on the hardware implementation, CPUID can report the XSAVE state size
>> larger than the size of C structures defined for each of the XSAVE state
>> due to padding. Such case should be safe and should not need to generate
>> warning message.
> Do you have an example which CPU generation and which feature?
This is observed with one of the newly supported features in the upcoming product.
> We don't use this these structs in the kernel and the xsave layout is
> dynamic based on the memory requirements reported by the CPU.
> But we have a warning which complains about different sizes. Now you
> change the warning that it is okay if the CPU reports that more memory
> is needed than we expect. This looks wrong. The other way around would
> be "okay" but this just renders the warning useless.
My point is it should be safe for the hardware to save data more than or equal
to the size used by the kernel. However, it is not okay if the hardware
saves data less than the amount used by kernel because that means the data
would lost at the time of restore.
However, in this case the hardware reported size contains data + padding.
Thanks,
Suravee
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-06 8:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-03 9:01 Suravee Suthikulpanit
2019-12-03 10:34 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-12-06 8:14 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit [this message]
2019-12-03 17:27 ` Dave Hansen
2019-12-06 8:14 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
2019-12-06 15:28 ` Dave Hansen
2019-12-11 5:24 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
2019-12-11 14:13 ` Dave Hansen
2019-12-12 6:52 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
2020-01-13 9:54 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
2020-01-15 16:54 ` Dave Hansen
2020-04-29 19:18 ` AMD / Memory Protection Keys Dave Hansen
2020-05-01 23:50 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ccee3768-c160-25b6-362f-de6cdd2b78c2@amd.com \
--to=suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com \
--cc=Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jon.grimm@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®