linux-kernel - [tip:x86/fpu] x86/fpu: Don't do __thread_fpu_end() if use_eager

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 linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <tip-1a2a7f4ec8e3a7ac582dac4d01fcc7e8acd3bb30@git.kernel.org>
Date:	Thu, 19 Feb 2015 03:32:40 -0800
From:	tip-bot for Oleg Nesterov <tipbot@...or.com>
To:	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	bp@...e.de, mingo@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, riel@...hat.com
Subject: [tip:x86/fpu] x86/fpu: Don't do __thread_fpu_end()
  if use_eager_fpu()

Commit-ID:  1a2a7f4ec8e3a7ac582dac4d01fcc7e8acd3bb30
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/1a2a7f4ec8e3a7ac582dac4d01fcc7e8acd3bb30
Author:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
AuthorDate: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 15:01:59 -0500
Committer:  Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
CommitDate: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:12:46 +0100

x86/fpu: Don't do __thread_fpu_end() if use_eager_fpu()

unlazy_fpu()->__thread_fpu_end() doesn't look right if use_eager_fpu().
Unconditional __thread_fpu_end() is only correct if we know that this
thread can't return to user-mode and use FPU.

Fortunately it has only 2 callers. fpu_copy() checks use_eager_fpu(),
and init_fpu(current) can be only called by the coredumping thread via
regset->get(). But it is exported to modules, and imo this should be
fixed anyway.

And if we check use_eager_fpu() we can use __save_fpu() like fpu_copy()
and save_init_fpu() do.

- It seems that even !use_eager_fpu() case doesn't need the unconditional
  __thread_fpu_end(), we only need it if __save_init_fpu() returns 0.

- It is still not clear to me if __save_init_fpu() can safely nest with
  another save + restore from __kernel_fpu_begin(). If not, we can use
  kernel_fpu_disable() to fix the race.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1423252925-14451-3-git-send-email-riel@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/i387.c | 8 ++++++--
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c b/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
index 4d0db9e..f3ced6f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
@@ -106,8 +106,12 @@ void unlazy_fpu(struct task_struct *tsk)
 {
 	preempt_disable();
 	if (__thread_has_fpu(tsk)) {
-		__save_init_fpu(tsk);
-		__thread_fpu_end(tsk);
+		if (use_eager_fpu()) {
+			__save_fpu(tsk);
+		} else {
+			__save_init_fpu(tsk);
+			__thread_fpu_end(tsk);
+		}
 	}
 	preempt_enable();
 }
--
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/