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, 15 Nov 2019 11:12:00 -0800
From:   Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bp@alien8.de, luto@kernel.org,
        hpa@zytor.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com,
        ravi.v.shankar@intel.com, markus.t.metzger@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/17] Enable FSGSBASE instructions
Message-ID: <20191115191200.GD22747@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
References: <1570212969-21888-1-git-send-email-chang.seok.bae@intel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1911151926380.28787@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1911151926380.28787@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 07:29:17PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2019, Chang S. Bae wrote:
> > 
> > Updates from v8 [10]:
> > * Internalized the interrupt check in the helper functions (Andy L.)
> > * Simplified GS base helper functions (Tony L.)
> > * Changed the patch order to put the paranoid path changes before the
> >   context switch changes (Tony L.)
> > * Fixed typos (Randy D.) and massaged a few sentences in the documentation
> > * Massaged the FSGSBASE enablement message
> 
> That still lacks what Andy requested quite some time ago in the V8 thread:
> 
>      https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/034aaf3a-a93d-ec03-0bbd-068e1905b774@kernel.org/
> 
>   "I also think that, before this series can have my ack, it needs an 
>    actual gdb maintainer to chime in, publicly, and state that they have 
>    thought about and tested the ABI changes and that gdb still works on 
>    patched kernels with and without FSGSBASE enabled.  I realize that there 
>    were all kinds of discussions, but they were all quite theoretical, and 
>    I think that the actual patches need to be considered by people who 
>    understand the concerns.  Specific test cases would be nice, too."
> 
> What's the state of this?

Adding Markus.

-Andi