[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <553964D1.300@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:32:01 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Mallick, Asit K" <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
"Williamson, Glenn P" <glenn.p.williamson@...el.com>
CC: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH Bugfix v2 2/4] x86/xsaves: Define and use user_xstate_size
for xstate size in signal context
On 04/23/2015 10:09 AM, Yu, Fenghua wrote:
>> > If those untouched fields of the xsave buffer are in the "init state", then
>> > we've got no problem. But, are those "untouched since (1)" fields in the
>> > kernel xsave buf *GUARANTEED* to be in the init state?
> In fact, those untouched fields in kernel xsave buf "IS GUARANTEED" to be in
> the init state.
>
> Please check __sanitize_i387_state() called just before copy_to_user_xstate().
> That functions GUARANTEES the untouched fields in kernel xsave buf to be in
> init state.
OK, that makes sense. Other than the horribly-named
sanitize_i387_state(). :)
--
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