On 07/11/2013 12:29 PM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>>>> + * The way it is done:
>>>> + * - add a int3 trap to the address that will be patched
>>>> + * - sync cores
>>>
>>> You don't need this "sync cores". (and your code didn't) :)
>>
>> I believe you do, lest you get "Frankenstructions". I believe you don't
>> need the second one, however. I should dig up my notes on this.
>
> I found this post from 2010 from you:
>
> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1001.1/01530.html
>
> If it's still valid and you guys at Intel haven't discovered any reason
> why that procedure would be invalid, I'll send out v3 with that'd be using
> exactly this ordering of syncing of the cores.
>
Just a note on that: in that post "In fact, if a suitable int3 handler
is left permanently in place then step 5 is unnecessary as well" should
obviously have been "the synchronization in step 4" rather than "step 5".
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
