Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 14 Oct 2021 17:34:14 +0300
From:   Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Ser Olmy <ser.olmy@protonmail.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [regression] commit d298b03506d3 ("x86/fpu: Restore the masking
 out of reserved MXCSR bits")
Message-ID: <YWg/5h3OcQKE94Nz@intel.com>
References: <YWgYIYXLriayyezv@intel.com>
 <YWg+O1AXrWLO3Sf9@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <YWg+O1AXrWLO3Sf9@zn.tnic>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 04:27:07PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 02:44:33PM +0300, Ville Syrj?l? wrote:
> > I have a 32bit installation here that stopped working. Bisected it
> > to commit d298b03506d3 ("x86/fpu: Restore the masking out of reserved
> > MXCSR bits").
> 
> Lemme make sure I understand this correctly: this patch is bad and with
> it reverted it works?

Yes.

>
> Because before this patch, the restoring would be a more restrictive
> than before and this patch reverts the code to the old behavior for
> invalid MXCSR bits.
> 
> > Tested the same disk on on both a 64bit capable Pentium D
> > and a 32bit only Pentium 4 just to rule out the specific CPU.
> > Busted on both.
> 
> So that's a purely 32-bit installation and a 32-bit kernel and you've
> booted it on two different machines?

Yes.

-- 
Ville Syrj?l?
Intel