From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58184) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vp6N5-0006pA-I7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 20:08:00 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vp6Mx-0004f9-5d for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 20:07:51 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([2001:1868:205::10]:51237 helo=mail.zytor.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vp6Mw-0004d8-T3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 20:07:43 -0500 Message-ID: <52A274C0.4010509@zytor.com> Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 17:07:12 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1386375658-2191-1-git-send-email-qiaowei.ren@intel.com> <1386375658-2191-3-git-send-email-qiaowei.ren@intel.com> <52A20AD6.8080706@redhat.com> <52A242BE.3010701@zytor.com> <9E0BE1322F2F2246BD820DA9FC397ADE014A6115@SHSMSX102.ccr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <9E0BE1322F2F2246BD820DA9FC397ADE014A6115@SHSMSX102.ccr.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] X86, mpx: Intel MPX xstate feature definition List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Ren, Qiaowei" , "Liu, Jinsong" , Paolo Bonzini Cc: "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "x86@kernel.org" , Xudong Hao , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar On 12/06/2013 04:23 PM, Ren, Qiaowei wrote: >>> >>> We need to either disable these features in lazy mode, or we need to >>> force eager mode if these features are to be supported. The problem >>> with the latter is that it means forcing eager mode regardless of if >>> anything actually *uses* these features. >>> >>> A third option would be to require applications to use a prctl() or >>> similar to enable eager-save features. >>> >> >> The third option seems better -- how does native mpx patches work, force >> eager? >> > It should be the second option, as you can see xsave.c which we remove from this patch. :) > Ah yes... I missed the fact that that chunk had been dropped from this patch. It really shouldn't be. I'll substitute the previous version of the patch. -hpa