[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54CAC190.30905@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:26:08 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@...il.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3]: x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu fixes/cleanups
On 01/29/2015 01:56 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> --- x/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> +++ x/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> @@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ dotraplinkage void do_bounds(struct pt_r
> * It is not directly accessible, though, so we need to
> * do an xsave and then pull it out of the xsave buffer.
> */
> - fpu_save_init(&tsk->thread.fpu);
> + unlazy_fpu(tsk);
> xsave_buf = &(tsk->thread.fpu.state->xsave);
...
> bndcsr = get_xsave_addr(xsave_buf, XSTATE_BNDCSR);
Hmm, if the the thread was not using the FPU, and this fails to save
anything in to the xsave_buf, what will bndcsr point to? It _looks_ to
me like it will just point to uninitialized data since the xsave never
happened.
Fenghua, shouldn't get_xsave_addr() be checking the xstate bit against
the xsave->xstate_bv?
--
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