From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-yw1-f201.google.com (mail-yw1-f201.google.com [209.85.128.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3A5741A81 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 18:14:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--sidtelang.bounces.google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="tpWxnaiT" Received: by mail-yw1-f201.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-5c59fa94f72so25735577b3.2 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 10:14:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1700244898; x=1700849698; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+fbLTFjANqYgwgt64Svgj7yz/+GXWm87q5kHEmh7RHQ=; b=tpWxnaiTpQdAYQBBIDWt07ciUBX8FPdvDow08t2xTV5g6EBlXs/6jTkpWK6Xp4GI8r jtFUnomj/Q5TwCv/Bg6MDciyuRk0thgnTQVisrwTMX52fooAJBWc0ObR7nzoXOCPgstb EhWdFlhLhn5FGNawZibIpUB8xN/bA85nM8mfzJ3+xAc0/dvMUuru1jarbdc17xfKKpi7 eNtiG1Tc6kiOq9NEfrfcMffFd46YY/6huY18v0NxG83nJKhXu57eJ9A/Rk71IvdJ509A gvMW/LmgRYhZCnYsYtOWF9s/fglEky6bA2P9cLtLD1krYd2+t2hDYjs0UMMN9ltlI8jL DIeQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1700244898; x=1700849698; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+fbLTFjANqYgwgt64Svgj7yz/+GXWm87q5kHEmh7RHQ=; b=LKCKyxYpSaXV+mibX4Wm2h3j81GXmXxSCsTzF+2wBfrTPLtlzzIJbrxzmv47YBflX0 JG4l6FC0JhXaO3LLyPH/sgsnSbUFiNX0YmYmihkWXa5pibVV1f85QepzmKDS/Z1ov11N c3lX24rfQQWRormf0E2i1e/Us+MJKbI6u6YQg5WXMpO4ZaAOWjCuQ2zKJEN9/IsFmYAF rvXWVPQyCRvo2+50+iMCNquhC3vkZJh0Wnn3iEPX+AG7zcof4mYD6NBs3wS/aYSA84FY lq70cl48E8jwmEgwzijhB+9OT81PvLAEeU4fRhchp15//bzte+hC61ihrrp0MF4Dhnj6 hYlA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyLaF9GqWgbIy00094mXiOzaLCXOy/m92nQ7QcIYUVX7G3NOufH iJwl0SunQp/TRAXDofxKXi5EloVp7v0X998= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEE+IIx7KMHZPN9vdQjcuy3teOmitlUWHKVwlM0G1+hdGFPfVjvcVb0+yiLXwEizmypJME+tSYRJanyIsw= X-Received: from sidtelang2.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:2b:ff92:c0a8:1b8a]) (user=sidtelang job=sendgmr) by 2002:a81:d512:0:b0:57a:118a:f31 with SMTP id i18-20020a81d512000000b0057a118a0f31mr11293ywj.7.1700244898771; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 10:14:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 18:14:57 +0000 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: llvm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.43.0.rc0.421.g78406f8d94-goog Message-ID: <20231117181458.2260258-1-sidtelang@google.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND] x86/asm: Force native_apic_mem_read to use mov From: Sidharth Telang To: marcorr@google.com Cc: acdunlap@google.com, ak@linux.intel.com, alpergun@google.com, ben-linux@fluff.org, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@intel.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, jacobhxu@google.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev, mingo@redhat.com, nathan@kernel.org, ndesaulniers@google.com, pgonda@google.com, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, seanjc@google.com, tglx@linutronix.de, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, trix@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > Is this blocked on an item? There seems to be consensus that this > patch fixes a bug and is taking the right high-level approach (i.e., > change the guest code to avoid triggering a sequence that isn't > supported under CVM exception-based emulation). Without something like > this, we weren't able to build the kernel w/ CLANG when it is > configured to run under SEV-ES. > We sent out two versions of the patch. One that does the mov directly > [1] and a second that calls readl [2]. Is one of these two patches > acceptable? Or do we need to follow up on something? > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/0D6A1E49-F21B-42AA-BBBF-13BFC308BB1E@zytor.com/T/ > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220812183501.3555820-1-acdunlap@google.com/ Signal-boosting this thread: is this blocked on any item? We are still running into this issue (SEV-ES guest unexpectedly requests termination minutes after booting) and applying this patch seems to fix it. Thanks, Sid