[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080724202728.GL14380@linux-os.sc.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:27:28 -0700
From: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...nel.org" <stable@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [patch] x64, fpu: fix possible FPU leakage in error conditions
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:59:03AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> >
> > If we don't do init_fpu() + restore from the sane init state, process has
> > to be killed, in the paranoid failing scenario of math_state_restore()
>
> Umm. I'm still not seeing why the right answer is not just to do "stts +
> math_used = 0".
>
> And the specific case of math_state_restore(), that will also fix the
> problem - next time around.
Ok.
> As far as I can tell, your patch causes serious problems in case
> init_fpu() fails. Which it can do, afaik.
Only the first init_fpu() can fail (memory allocation failure). But here,
it is def not the first time.
Anyhow, your suggestion is simple and clean. Will post the patch shortly.
I have to do clear_fpu() though(stts + math_used = 0 may not be enough).
thanks,
suresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists