On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:07:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 07:23:45PM +0000, Fenghua Yu wrote: > > @@ -538,6 +547,9 @@ DEFINE_IDTENTRY_ERRORCODE(exc_general_protection) > > > > cond_local_irq_enable(regs); > > > > + if (user_mode(regs) && fixup_pasid_exception()) > > + goto exit; > > +
> So you're eating any random #GP that might or might not be PASID > related. And all that witout a comment... Enlighten? This is moderately well commented inside the fixup_pasid_exception() function. Another copy of the comments here at the call-site seems overkill. Would it help to change the name to try_fixup_pasid_exception() to make it clearer that this is just a heuristic that may or may not fix this particular #GP? -Tony _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
