[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150325171113.GA29045@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 18:11:13 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/17] x86, fpu: wrap get_xsave_addr() to make it safer
Hi Dave,
On 03/25, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> It may get
> called on CPUs without eager FPU mode on.
>
> > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/daveh/x86-mpx.git/commit/?h=mpx-v16&id=92d3e7c1664f766142904904e27e126888adb8a7
> > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/daveh/x86-mpx.git/commit/?h=mpx-v16&id=18049953ae43a7ffa084a01613c1684bdf24dd2e
>
> All that the MPX code wants here is to read the in-memory copy of the
> MPX registers, or error out.
Yes, iirc we alredy discussed these fixes ?
I still think that the "if (!xstate)" check at the start of
tsk_get_xsave_field() will look better, but this is cosmetic.
> So, for the purposes of this series:
>
> With the (so far unmerged to Linus's tree) changes to unlazy_fpu(), does
> tsk_get_xsave_field()'s use of unlazy_fpu() look correct?
I think yes. But let me remind just in case that this depends on
"x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu: don't do __thread_fpu_end() if use_eager_fpu()".
> Should we also be renaming tsk_get_xsave_field() to something more
> appropriate?
Oh, don't ask me ;) To me it looks fine.
Oleg.
--
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