Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:7420:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id hk32csp605720pxb; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 23:33:14 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwUw2WJJWI4Jqms8VZmYtfl51MbomVzxkJBRY3ZlFUTvIH9AjJsbWJMzmnG4ZVHZNYKipeh X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:eac5:b0:149:fccf:1cf3 with SMTP id p5-20020a170902eac500b00149fccf1cf3mr1311906pld.77.1644996793933; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 23:33:13 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1644996793; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=J6Cd3vM6QYHy65KD+K89gX2dkfYvNFpJk0+FfA9koSyL6m2eZGe5cAsxbLtya8Yl2l dFfgUZ7lIsEWU41TXYMkAktGlc9ToBerSMMGsDhOmj7BSQAzhK5PDhuySEj93XeK2erL 4fXhacufmgim2ppckrYw/JNEllk1y2kmVroQ87j4QSfApvLKqboBvccTwU9M0xNaIJV6 QNVoKovUtU71fbW8tx5quABjPdC/irggttK5qKrISd8R8pMTzKzTuF+bMgzBuw3l+3h9 6XGq3rzyG9CHxX5wuDHSIYNxCHIzP+YNadb0Jon66Jeym3Vm/Xljgk/CGLGgXx5DD+W8 mMJw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=oy1YM/HzNdw/9ZFVOisrJV7nT7HM/m+A2J2vkUwfDOQ=; b=zQBFftyCQD/JY0NXt6zKV5Tno/FwmCAC5h2GSv3Pb6sG9Sny9H5wwOh+wLENhSb1Mc T3c9rhKfRcdXP6r3ktU3RTLAV7ufH2H2STNBQclMJUSSW81doqX6iIg4DpKssINts7h9 7qMAwPuup6FM5B8w+kEfl7vnj6lxbjzSIAhbxAtXA6hnjB/XSoQ5Lx25mQe5Mj+5Lj6G Fs5SgU6tELex70JZ6euvIDAFOpNbO6vkD9xPI5EdtS+F73gGj1+il64gwfv/vdfNlTIh sumrLMGfDbsbv19nRRcQnUUYN7vnM0XFpziNkFRb7EXPT5bWAyH1aqQOxm7OVZy4/FWL vCVA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=iDyrMrL5; spf=softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com Return-Path: Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net. [23.128.96.19]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o8si16091553pjq.29.2022.02.15.23.33.13 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 15 Feb 2022 23:33:13 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=iDyrMrL5; spf=softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED2B12ADD; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 22:59:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1343494AbiBPCCp (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 15 Feb 2022 21:02:45 -0500 Received: from mxb-00190b01.gslb.pphosted.com ([23.128.96.19]:52494 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S245754AbiBPCCn (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Feb 2022 21:02:43 -0500 Received: from mail-ej1-x636.google.com (mail-ej1-x636.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::636]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1774B9F6F0 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 18:02:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ej1-x636.google.com with SMTP id qk11so1222133ejb.2 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 18:02:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oy1YM/HzNdw/9ZFVOisrJV7nT7HM/m+A2J2vkUwfDOQ=; b=iDyrMrL5USelID7ncCPEtS8P1iJHrYtWzRHFXvfjcLZ5sKzz5wxlqfs1s+VKuXUM0H bGgWxmr27jV9NoSeuAb37hoTBfjgUAEcN+piOHr3ZcSuFnR97cd0hhrJloCfcgTixOur HfqfFdKk1epCuLop7JuIGXVestj+xatWHY7ISqaz/6N/em25cnifpHZ2wJJzylKYRyTu cmgDwPQ03pVEoYZlthWznKxroxaO2hwI9DBAVajtQkJgG74Y8T96l69LJD2GcrrVjkER +KLdZqB8AenqHTaxBfKy9OGWUvnl8lk/n6FHGTEFnsOg8XpW7ayjvQjoRYt2nckqjUjf 2gQA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oy1YM/HzNdw/9ZFVOisrJV7nT7HM/m+A2J2vkUwfDOQ=; b=MMHL+9afu68V3B+VSUIm2nLbMkq7PKnktVB3EVqt7YlRpK04vj9TXJf7kSuZyy1MW2 hMg3+7Nz9AfGNJn5SLILkVG/OmpaSN/8WQxZm2XW4zNTDZN8x4c+vDz+GPBOdqgW6SSM S9vhPwlgqaqZwMYudCw46wLXwC9HkQqBFZXGGFuaTc8Zj0/v8stQj0Ozl8ZsUiDjc1yy pW3nrq6E7oQf0snywFqnG7o6cZRW+MpvpszV2DCmn7Tj3V8FH1Qtdl43akAfCsFey0cg /xtt24JO1eYE1oh9wEdBfW45ksfvFeF5eLhISWEFH1v6A8dUqqGQU38lTgauYFOuNopw OYkQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533pjl0lxUM0UpdCs3S6lKFg6h7QQMGWn0q/CNTHLLPrYjw+eQwl anBuRiVvLQcMmfuasm6Skx2A1qxgFUusR1A948WRKw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:c12:b0:6cd:795c:9803 with SMTP id s18-20020a1709060c1200b006cd795c9803mr552433ejf.593.1644976950396; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 18:02:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <543efc25-9b99-53cd-e305-d8b4d917b64b@intel.com> <20220215192233.8717-1-bgeffon@google.com> <066c9f4b-b0a3-9343-9db9-1c1c7303da6f@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <066c9f4b-b0a3-9343-9db9-1c1c7303da6f@intel.com> From: Brian Geffon Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 21:01:54 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH stable 5.4,5.10] x86/fpu: Correct pkru/xstate inconsistency To: Dave Hansen Cc: Greg KH , Thomas Gleixner , Willis Kung , Guenter Roeck , Borislav Petkov , Andy Lutomirski , "# v4 . 10+" , "the arch/x86 maintainers" , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 4:42 PM Dave Hansen wrote: > > On 2/15/22 13:32, Brian Geffon wrote: > >> How was this tested, and what do the maintainers of this subsystem > >> think? And will you be around to fix the bugs in this when they are > >> found? > > This has been trivial to reproduce, I've used a small repro which I've > > put here: https://gist.github.com/bgaff/9f8cbfc8dd22e60f9492e4f0aff8f04f > > , I also was able to reproduce this using the protection_keys self > > tests on a 11th Gen Core i5-1135G7. > > I've got an i7-1165G7, but I'm not seeing any failures on a > 5.11 distro kernel. > Hi Dave, I suspect the reason you're not seeing it is toolchain related, I'm building with clang 14.0.0 and it produces the sequence of instructions which use the cached value. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help you investigate this further. Brian