Received: by 2002:a25:8b91:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id j17csp4939798ybl; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 04:54:17 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw1eST9pPKM/boITg3nbKzzxMIyJBwzpQ7hxbWbO7CyMCPoWHspJEeoC9Ga57eV2Y7wOlMl X-Received: by 2002:aca:4789:: with SMTP id u131mr3171627oia.43.1580820857469; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 04:54:17 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1580820857; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=rrMpupW0CFc6t14BzIcqq5I3HEDXjC+LEj4aqivuLwwkT+zZXo405Bal/hAYWa4dx6 IoMAhkRGuAtVdFC/QktDpqmU51SeooGoNA/Y6ac7ogahRsrOwiePItYHX/ARROnLRqTr HoRP7fn+Py9pSLoJ/wF0dcaPGLmBOFE3tJ5FQIRcpEyLVOM8b83wL/ut5/4PjiZ36dxd +EJyJitlj5ifi11qTGZyHtlXqSqyJAudc6dMO51Q3+GkpItSRIfWd/V1d8ZgO86O0lim YYd04z5kqNaeZ4rQJI4uh5oIf5IjvdqE2iorY7Xczp39T9f0WFN4naHhFWOFGftx4cn/ Kb6Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from; bh=fgQA4WD63lqQNMuXV1LR9uepc20JRAuHvhumrjcC3yc=; b=I2jQRxGexXf9+kXo67w4OGFq63R9gAzgGDvBQWLONnJNiJajp7HppNKcUfX3SB3KXS FobnfYech4bz15WNBzoBBTASnZa0JfbUFOepo8XtRUcem0Sgw1KSqtZiuRCHoxfczaO4 AbO8NfJ8M/Cy5voerzepkFSEGg1IVt5F70lKbQ9+yloR5M6W28RbKU5TAgiKLDxB4TZH 7q4d18Lk5yaK4ubvGmbd5xS1DGovY3Bla5a7aHNx1AF1LyZhlLracYSgxUecDiPauxkm sDJT5hew5kh+mAha4K3WEWOaacc8/xF0tl8ANaxZFWoD7Wc2NpEVV1L25u1IogW46Sw6 A0hg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id h16si12285799otk.193.2020.02.04.04.54.05; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 04:54:17 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727267AbgBDMwv (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 4 Feb 2020 07:52:51 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:33543 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727215AbgBDMwv (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Feb 2020 07:52:51 -0500 Received: from [212.187.182.162] (helo=nanos.tec.linutronix.de) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1iyxgz-0005I1-MG; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 13:52:37 +0100 Received: by nanos.tec.linutronix.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 07DCE100720; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:52:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Sean Christopherson , "Luck\, Tony" Cc: Mark D Rustad , Arvind Sankar , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , "Yu\, Fenghua" , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , H Peter Anvin , "Raj\, Ashok" , "Shankar\, Ravi V" , linux-kernel , x86 Subject: Re: [PATCH v17] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by kernel In-Reply-To: <20200204000449.GA28014@linux.intel.com> References: <4E95BFAA-A115-4159-AA4F-6AAB548C6E6C@gmail.com> <8CC9FBA7-D464-4E58-8912-3E14A751D243@gmail.com> <20200126200535.GB30377@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com> <20200204000449.GA28014@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 12:52:31 +0000 Message-ID: <87v9omy0og.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sean Christopherson writes: > On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 12:05:35PM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote: > > ... > >> +bool handle_user_split_lock(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code) > > No reason to take the error code unless there's a plan to use it. > >> +{ >> + if ((regs->flags & X86_EFLAGS_AC) || sld_state == sld_fatal) >> + return false; > > Any objection to moving the EFLAGS.AC up to do_alignment_check()? And > take "unsigned long rip" instead of @regs? > > That would allow KVM to reuse handle_user_split_lock() for guest faults > without any changes (other than exporting). > > E.g. do_alignment_check() becomes: > > if (!(regs->flags & X86_EFLAGS_AC) && handle_user_split_lock(regs->ip)) > return; No objections. Thanks, tglx