Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:38:44 -0700
From:   Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] x86/split_lock: Align x86_capability to unsigned
 long to avoid split locked access
Message-ID: <20180629203844.GA68178@romley-ivt3.sc.intel.com>
References: <1530282807-66555-1-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com>
 <1530282807-66555-3-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com>
 <ae0b8cb1-a8a9-f0ef-3c20-f4fe4b9b6f4a@intel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1806291824010.1595@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20180629190346.GO18979@romley-ivt3.sc.intel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1806292148510.1595@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1806292148510.1595@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:08:59PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 06:35:39PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > 
> > > Plus what enforces proper alignment for the other capability related
> > > u32 arrays? 
> > 
> > Do you want me to enforce unsigned long alignment for all that are used by
> > locked BTS/BTR?
> 
> If there are variables which might be unaligned and accessed with locked
> instructions and you have them identified, then why are you asking whether
> they should be fixed?
> 
> Ignoring them because they do not trigger #AC right now, is only the
> correct answer if you are a follower of the 'works by chance' cult.
> 
> Yeah, I know that most of this industry just works by chance....
>

Ok. I can work on fixing alignment for these instructions in next version.

How to handle data that is used in generic code which can be used on
non-Intel platform? For exmple, if I do this change for struct efi in
include/linux/efi.h because set_bit() sets bits in efi.flags:
-       unsigned long flags;
+       unsigned long flags __aligned(unsigned long);
 } efi;

People may argue that the alignment unnecessarily increases size of 'efi'
on non-Intel platform which doesn't have split lock issue. Do we care this
argument?

Another question, there will be a bunch of one-line changes for
the alignment (i.e. adding __aligned(unsigned long)) in various files.
Will the changes be put in one big patch or in separate one-liner patches?

Thanks.

-Fenghua