Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 May 2024 09:19:52 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v10 04/27] x86/fpu/xstate: Introduce XFEATURE_MASK_KERNEL_DYNAMIC xfeature set | From | "Yang, Weijiang" <> |
| |
On 5/8/2024 7:17 AM, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 5/7/24 15:57, Sean Christopherson wrote:
[...]
>> My one request would be to change the WARN in os_xsave() to fire on CET_KERNEL, >> not KERNEL_DYNAMIC, because it's specifically CET_KERNEL that is guest-only. >> Future dynamic xfeatures could be guest-only, but they could also be dynamic for >> some completely different reason. That was my other hang-up with "DYNAMIC"; >> as-is, os_xsave() implies that it really truly is GUEST_ONLY. >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.h b/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.h >> index 83ebf1e1cbb4..2a1ff49ccfd5 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.h >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.h >> @@ -185,8 +185,7 @@ static inline void os_xsave(struct fpstate *fpstate) >> WARN_ON_FPU(!alternatives_patched); >> xfd_validate_state(fpstate, mask, false); >> >> - WARN_ON_FPU(!fpstate->is_guest && >> - (mask & XFEATURE_MASK_KERNEL_DYNAMIC)); >> + WARN_ON_FPU(!fpstate->is_guest && (mask & XFEATURE_MASK_CET_KERNEL)); >> >> XSTATE_XSAVE(&fpstate->regs.xsave, lmask, hmask, err); > Yeah, that would make a lot of sense. We could add a more generic > #define for it later if another feature gets added like this.
Thank you for getting alignment! I will change the code accordingly.
| |