Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
        Johannes Wikner <kwikner@ethz.ch>,
        Alyssa Milburn <alyssa.milburn@linux.intel.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
        Joao Moreira <joao.moreira@intel.com>,
        Joseph Nuzman <joseph.nuzman@intel.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] x86/cpu: Remove segment load from switch_to_new_gdt()
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgFNV17=y3CQo1-FgRT5p04JFTa7RV16TN1RFL8sptZ-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20220716230952.787452088@linutronix.de>
 <20220718173923.891284477@linutronix.de>
 <CAHk-=wgFNV17=y3CQo1-FgRT5p04JFTa7RV16TN1RFL8sptZ-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Jul 2022 20:55:03 +0200
Message-ID: <874jzew8s8.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 18 2022 at 11:43, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I appreciate the added big comments in this code, but looking at this patch:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 10:52 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>> +        * For secondary CPUs this is not a problem because they start
>> +        * already with the direct GDT and the real GSBASE. This invocation
>> +        * is pointless and will be removed in a subsequent step.
>> +        */
>> +       if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64))
>> +               wrmsrl(MSR_GS_BASE, cpu_kernelmode_gs_base(cpu));
>>  }
>
> ... while those comments are nice and all, I do think this retains the
> basic insanity of having "switch_to_new_gdt()" do magical things on
> x86-64 that don't really match the name.
>
> So honestly, I'd be happier of that whole
>
>        if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64))
>                wrmsrl(MSR_GS_BASE, cpu_kernelmode_gs_base(cpu));
>
> was migrated to the callers instead. There aren't *that* many callers.
>
> I expect that it is then quite possible that several of the call-sites
> would go "GS_BASE is already correct here, I can remove this".

With the next patch we have only two left. The SMP and the UP case. Let
me look whether the UP needs it at all.

> But even if every single caller keeps that wrmsrl() around, at least
> it wouldn't be hidden behind a function call that has a name that
> implies something completely different is happening.
>
> And no, I don't care *that* deeply, so this is just a suggestion.
>
> But wouldn't it be nice if this function was actually named by what it
> does, rather than by what it used to do back in the i386 days when the
> GDT affected the segment bases?

Yes. Let me come up with a sensible name.

Thanks,

        tglx