lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:18:19 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] i387: support lazy restore of FPU state On 02/19/2012 02:44 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 02/19/2012 02:37 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> - on *every* task switch from task A, we write A->thread.fpu.last_cpu, >> whether we owned the FPU or not. And we only write a real CPU number in >> the case where we owned it, and the FPU save left the state untouched >> in the FPU. >> >> - so when we switch into task A next time, comparing the current CPU >> number with that 'last_cpu' field inarguably says "when I last switched >> out, I really saved it on this CPU" >> >> That, together with verifying that the per-cpu "fpu_owner_task" matches >> "task A", guarantees that the state is really valid. Because we will >> clear (or set to another task) fpu_owner_task if it ever gets >> switched to anything else. >> >> But somebody should really validate this. Think through all the >> kernel_fpu_begin() etc cases. I think it looks pretty obvious, and it >> really does seem to work and improve task switching, but... >> > > I think your logic is correct but suboptimal. > > What would make more sense to me is that we write last_cpu when we > *load* the state. After all, if you didn't load the state you couldn't > have modified it. In kernel_fpu_begin, *if* we end up flushing the > state, we should set last_cpu to -1 indicating that *no* CPU currently > owns the state -- after all, even on this CPU we would now have to > reload the state from memory. > This is obviously wrong for kernel_fpu_begin... what we should do there is to just set fpu_owner_task to NULL as we no longer have any task's content in the fpu; no need to much with last_cpu though. -hpa -- 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