[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] x86/amd: Protect set_cpuidmask() against #GP faults



On 6/5/2014 10:23 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
Virtual environments such as Xen HVM containers and VirtualBox do not
necessarily provide support for feature masking MSRs.

As their presence is detected by model numbers alone, and their use predicated
on command line parameters, use the safe() variants of {wr,rd}msr() to avoid
dying with an early #GP fault.

In fact, use the password variants in all cases because:
     a) they are safe to use even if not strictly required
     b) have a more useful function prototype for this purposes

Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
CC: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx>
CC: Aravind Gopalakrishnan <Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@xxxxxxx>

---
v2: Retain register suffixes for skip_??? booleans
---
  xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c |   36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

Acked-by: Aravind Gopalakrishnan <aravind.gopalakrishnan@xxxxxxx>
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c
index ea158cb..53ffbdb 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c
@@ -151,6 +151,7 @@ static void __devinit set_cpuidmask(const struct 
cpuinfo_x86 *c)
        static unsigned int extfeat_ecx, extfeat_edx;
        static unsigned int l7s0_eax, l7s0_ebx;
        static unsigned int thermal_ecx;
+       static bool_t skip_feat_ecx_edx, skip_extfeat_ecx_edx;
        static bool_t skip_l7s0_eax_ebx, skip_thermal_ecx;
        static enum { not_parsed, no_mask, set_mask } status;
        unsigned int eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
@@ -233,18 +234,29 @@ static void __devinit set_cpuidmask(const struct 
cpuinfo_x86 *c)
setmask:
        /* AMD processors prior to family 10h required a 32-bit password */
-       if (c->x86 >= 0x10) {
-               wrmsr(MSR_K8_FEATURE_MASK, feat_edx, feat_ecx);
-               wrmsr(MSR_K8_EXT_FEATURE_MASK, extfeat_edx, extfeat_ecx);
-               if (!skip_l7s0_eax_ebx)
-                       wrmsr(MSR_AMD_L7S0_FEATURE_MASK, l7s0_ebx, l7s0_eax);
-               if (!skip_thermal_ecx) {
-                       rdmsr(MSR_AMD_THRM_FEATURE_MASK, eax, edx);
-                       wrmsr(MSR_AMD_THRM_FEATURE_MASK, thermal_ecx, edx);
-               }
-       } else {
-               wrmsr_amd(MSR_K8_FEATURE_MASK, feat_edx, feat_ecx);
-               wrmsr_amd(MSR_K8_EXT_FEATURE_MASK, extfeat_edx, extfeat_ecx);
+       if (!skip_feat_ecx_edx &&
+           wrmsr_amd_safe(MSR_K8_FEATURE_MASK, feat_edx, feat_ecx)) {
+               skip_feat_ecx_edx = 1;
+               printk("Failed to set CPUID feature mask\n");
+       }
+
+       if (!skip_extfeat_ecx_edx &&
+           wrmsr_amd_safe(MSR_K8_EXT_FEATURE_MASK, extfeat_edx, extfeat_ecx)) {
+               skip_extfeat_ecx_edx = 1;
+               printk("Failed to set CPUID extended feature mask\n");
+       }
+
+       if (!skip_l7s0_eax_ebx &&
+           wrmsr_amd_safe(MSR_AMD_L7S0_FEATURE_MASK, l7s0_ebx, l7s0_eax)) {
+               skip_l7s0_eax_ebx = 1;
+               printk("Failed to set CPUID leaf 7 subleaf 0 feature mask\n");
+       }
+
+       if (!skip_thermal_ecx &&
+           (rdmsr_amd_safe(MSR_AMD_THRM_FEATURE_MASK, &eax, &edx) ||
+            wrmsr_amd_safe(MSR_AMD_THRM_FEATURE_MASK, thermal_ecx, edx))){
+               skip_thermal_ecx = 1;
+               printk("Failed to set CPUID thermal/power feature mask\n");
        }
  }

With these changes, I guess no one is using 'wrmsr_amd' now.
So why not remove those bits as part of this patch?

Thanks,
-Aravind.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.