On 12/08/2025 10:43 am, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> On 2025-08-08 22:23, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/traps-setup.c b/xen/arch/x86/traps-setup.c
>> index 8ca379c9e4cb..13b8fcf0ba51 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/traps-setup.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps-setup.c
>> @@ -19,6 +20,124 @@ boolean_param("ler", opt_ler);
>>
>> void nocall entry_PF(void);
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Sets up system tables and descriptors for IDT devliery.
>> + *
>> + * - Sets up TSS with stack pointers, including ISTs
>> + * - Inserts TSS selector into regular and compat GDTs
>> + * - Loads GDT, IDT, TR then null LDT
>> + * - Sets up IST references in the IDT
>> + */
>> +static void load_system_tables(void)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int i, cpu = smp_processor_id();
>> + unsigned long stack_bottom = get_stack_bottom(),
>> + stack_top = stack_bottom & ~(STACK_SIZE - 1);
>> + /*
>> + * NB: define tss_page as a local variable because clang 3.5
>> doesn't
>> + * support using ARRAY_SIZE against per-cpu variables.
>> + */
>> + struct tss_page *tss_page = &this_cpu(tss_page);
>> + idt_entry_t *idt = this_cpu(idt);
>> +
>
> Given the clang baseline this might not be needed anymore?
Hmm. While true, looking at 51461114e26, the code is definitely better
written with the tss_page variable and we wouldn't want to go back to
the old form.
I think that I'll simply drop the comment.
~Andrew
P.S.
Generally speaking, because of the RELOC_HIDE() in this_cpu(), any time
you ever want two accesses to a variable, it's better (code gen wise) to
construct a pointer to it and use the point multiple times.
I don't understand why there's a RELOC_HIDE() in this_cpu(). The
justification doesn't make sense, but I've not had time to explore what
happens if we take it out.
