[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUvbnkVTKDVtgnXYPGiXDY621sY9MbOrCvjmpqG8xz-wA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:28:31 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Pekka Riikonen <priikone@....fi>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/fpu: math_state_restore() should not blindly
disable irqs
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>>
>> Please don't. IMO it's really nice that we don't use trap gates at
>> all on x86_64, and I find the conditional_sti thing much nicer than
>> having to audit all of the entry code to see whether it's safe to run
>> it with IRQs on.
>
> So I'm not sure I see much difference, but I'd certainly be ok with
> just moving the "conditional_sti()" up unconditionally to be the first
> thing in do_device_not_available().
I'd be fine with that. The important difference is that it's after swapgs.
--Andy
>
> The point being that we still *not* just randomly enable interrupts
> because we decide that the callers are wrong.
>
> Linus
--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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