[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150313155121.GH31998@pd.tnic>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:51:21 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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 3/4] x86/fpu: use restore_init_xstate() instead of
math_state_restore() on kthread exec
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 03:45:14PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Because in math_state_restore() case kernel_fpu_begin()->__save_init_fpu()
> will overwrite (corrupt) the same fpu->state buffer we need to restore.
> Without kernel_fpu_disable().
Yes.
> restore_init_xstate() obviously differs because it reads init_xstate_buf,
> we do not care at all if kernel_fpu_begin() in between overwrites ->state.
Ah yes, so we're on the thread exit path and we restore init xstate.
Sure, of course, that makes sense.
> And note! this is the yet another proof that init_fpu()->fpu_finit() is
> pointless. This (and almost all) users need fpu_alloc() only.
Right, applying.
Thanks for explaining!
:-)
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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