[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/7] x86: Add support for STAC/CLAC instructions
On 23/04/14 13:56, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 23.04.14 at 14:50, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 23/04/14 13:42, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 23.04.14 at 14:11, <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> +#define ASM_AC(op) \ >>>>>> + pushq %rax; \ >>>>>> + leaq boot_cpu_data(%rip), %rax; \ >>>>>> + btl $X86_FEATURE_SMAP-7*32, CPUINFO86_leaf7_features(%rax); \ >>>>>> + jnc 881f; \ >>>>>> + op; \ >>>>>> +881: popq %rax >>>>> While it is unlikely to change going forwards, $(X86_FEATURE_SMAP & 31) >>>>> looks more obviously correct. >>>> Okay. >>>>> Also, given that boot_cpu_data(%rip) is an assembler know constant >>>>> value, and CPUINFO86_leaf7_features is a constant offset from that, is >>>>> there any way of persuading the assembler to conjoin the two and forgo >>>>> the push, lea and pop. (I have had a go, but lack sufficient caffeine >>>>> this early in the day) >>>>> >>>>> ~Andrew >>>> I thought about this idea before posting this version, but I didn't get a >>>> good >>>> solution. I will continue to find a better way to handle this. >>> btl $X86_FEATURE_SMAP & 31, ((X86_FEATURE_SMAP >> 3) & >> ~3)+CPUINFO86_features+boot_cpu_data(%rip) >>> (at once replacing CPUINFO86_ext_features with CPUINFO86_features, >>> perhaps also changing the [inconsistent] name prefix; likely a suitable >>> macro could be created usable both here and wherever >>> CPUINFO86_ext_features is being used currently) >> This needs careful synchronising with the "no-smap" command line >> parameter which can shoot that bit out of boot features some time after >> it being set. >> >> It might be easier just to have bool_t __read_mostly smap_in_use; > For one I can't see how this relates to the coding suggestion - from > a functional pov the code above does nothing else than what Feng's > original code did. My appologies - it was not in reference to the coding suggestion persay, but a thought that occurred to me while reading the thread. > > And then, as long as the SMAP feature bit was ever set in the feature > mask (i.e. even if it gets cleared later), executing an extra stac or > clac will be harmless - we don't care whether we run with EFLAGS.AC > set or clear when CR4.SMAP is zero. > > Jan > However, this being true means that it should be fine as-was. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |