From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753095AbbHWL1N (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:27:13 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]:38292 "EHLO mail-wi0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752050AbbHWL1L (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:27:11 -0400 Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 13:26:52 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: X86 ML , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Brian Gerst , Steven Rostedt , Willy Tarreau , Borislav Petkov , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/entry/32: Remove duplicate initialization of tss.ss1 Message-ID: <20150823112652.GA3655@gmail.com> References: <690f0c629a1085d054e2d1ef3da073cfb3f7db92.1437678821.git.luto@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andy Lutomirski wrote: > It's statically initialized, so we don't need to dynamically > initialize it too. > > Reported-by: Brian Gerst > Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski > --- > > Changes since v1: Delete the code :) > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c | 8 -------- > 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c > index e2ed2513a51e..e08eee98a5f8 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c > @@ -1005,14 +1005,6 @@ void enable_sep_cpu(void) > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32) && !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SEP)) > goto out; > > -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32 > - /* > - * We cache MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_CS's value in the TSS's ss1 field -- > - * see the big comment in struct x86_hw_tss's definition. > - */ > - tss->x86_tss.ss1 = __KERNEL_CS; > -#endif > - > wrmsrl_safe(MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_CS, __KERNEL_CS); > wrmsrl_safe(MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_ESP, > (unsigned long)tss + So this code changed substantially in tip:x86/asm - do we still need this patch? Thanks, Ingo