This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
x86/xen: Zero MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL before suspend
to the 4.4-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
x86-xen-
* Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 12.04.18 at 09:32, wrote:
>
> > * Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
> >> >>> On 11.04.18 at 13:53, wrote:
> >> > * Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Additionally, x86 maintainers: is there a particular reason this (or
> >> >> any functionally equivalent patch) isn't ups
>>> On 12.04.18 at 09:32, wrote:
> * Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>> >>> On 11.04.18 at 13:53, wrote:
>> > * Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >
>> >> Additionally, x86 maintainers: is there a particular reason this (or
>> >> any functionally equivalent patch) isn't upstream yet? As indicated
>> >> before, I ha
* Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 11.04.18 at 13:53, wrote:
> > * Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
> >> Additionally, x86 maintainers: is there a particular reason this (or
> >> any functionally equivalent patch) isn't upstream yet? As indicated
> >> before, I had not been able to find any discussion, and
>>> On 11.04.18 at 13:53, wrote:
> * Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>> Additionally, x86 maintainers: is there a particular reason this (or
>> any functionally equivalent patch) isn't upstream yet? As indicated
>> before, I had not been able to find any discussion, and hence I
>> see no reason why this is
* Jan Beulich wrote:
> Additionally, x86 maintainers: is there a particular reason this (or
> any functionally equivalent patch) isn't upstream yet? As indicated
> before, I had not been able to find any discussion, and hence I
> see no reason why this is a patch we effectively carry privately i
>>> On 11.04.18 at 09:08, wrote:
> On 14/03/18 09:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 26.02.18 at 15:08, wrote:
>>> @@ -35,6 +40,9 @@ void xen_arch_post_suspend(int cancelled)
>>>
>>> static void xen_vcpu_notify_restore(void *data)
>>> {
>>> + if (xen_pv_domain() && boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SPE
On 14/03/18 09:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 26.02.18 at 15:08, wrote:
>> @@ -35,6 +40,9 @@ void xen_arch_post_suspend(int cancelled)
>>
>> static void xen_vcpu_notify_restore(void *data)
>> {
>> +if (xen_pv_domain() && boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SPEC_CTRL))
>> +wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_
>>> On 26.02.18 at 15:08, wrote:
> @@ -35,6 +40,9 @@ void xen_arch_post_suspend(int cancelled)
>
> static void xen_vcpu_notify_restore(void *data)
> {
> + if (xen_pv_domain() && boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SPEC_CTRL))
> + wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL, this_cpu_read(spec_ctrl));
> +
>
>>> On 26.02.18 at 15:08, wrote:
> Older Xen versions (4.5 and before) might have problems migrating pv
> guests with MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL having a non-zero value. So before
> suspending zero that MSR and restore it after being resumed.
>
> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross
Older Xen versions (4.5 and before) might have problems migrating pv
guests with MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL having a non-zero value. So before
suspending zero that MSR and restore it after being resumed.
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross
---
arch/x86/xen/suspend.c | 16
11 matches
Mail list logo
