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;
Date:   Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:05:31 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Willis Kung <williskung@google.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        "# v4 . 10+" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH stable 5.4,5.10] x86/fpu: Correct pkru/xstate
 inconsistency
Message-ID: <YgzMa7VcdzRCyYGn@kroah.com>
References: <543efc25-9b99-53cd-e305-d8b4d917b64b@intel.com>
 <20220215192233.8717-1-bgeffon@google.com>
 <YgwCuGcg6adXAXIz@kroah.com>
 <CADyq12wByWhsHNOnokrSwCDeEhPdyO6WNJNjpHE1ORgKwwwXgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <066c9f4b-b0a3-9343-9db9-1c1c7303da6f@intel.com>
 <CADyq12yuzOPbv+jrdhf8unzsifVXGw31LbW+Sh2tZ3qG=xjGjg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADyq12yuzOPbv+jrdhf8unzsifVXGw31LbW+Sh2tZ3qG=xjGjg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 09:01:54PM -0500, Brian Geffon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 4:42 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> 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.

Do older versions of clang have this problem?

thanks,

greg k-h