H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 12/06/2013 12:05 PM, Liu, Jinsong wrote: >>> >>> Since Peter already said the same, please undo these changes. >>> >>> Also, how is XSTATE_EAGER used? Should MPX be disabled when >>> xsaveopt is disabled on the kernel command line? (Liu, how would >>> this affect the KVM patches, too?) >>> >>> Paolo >> >> Currently seems no, and if needed we can add a new patch at kvm side >> accordingly when native mpx patches checked in. >> > > 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. > > Thoughts? > > -hpa
The third option seems better -- how does native mpx patches work, force eager? Thanks, Jinsong
