[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5568981C.7080605@sr71.net>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 09:47:24 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, oleg@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
riel@...hat.com, sbsiddha@...il.com, luto@...capital.net,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/19] x86, fpu: Wrap get_xsave_addr() to make it safer
On 05/28/2015 01:41 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> > + union fpregs_state *xstate;
>> > +
>> > + if (!current->thread.fpu.fpstate_active)
>> > + return NULL;
>> > + /*
>> > + * fpu__save() takes the CPU's xstate registers
>> > + * and saves them off to the 'fpu memory buffer.
>> > + */
>> > + fpu__save(¤t->thread.fpu);
>> > + xstate = ¤t->thread.fpu.state;
>> > +
>> > + return get_xsave_addr(&xstate->xsave, xsave_state);
> Small nit, this would become a lot shorter if you introduced a helper local
> variable:
>
> struct fpu *fpu = ¤t->thread.fpu;
>
> But more importantly, for a generic get_xsave_field_ptr() API, fpu__save() is not
> enough: fpu__save() will only save FPU registers into memory if necessary (i.e. if
> the FPU is already in use), and if you call it on a task with no FPU state then it
> will still have an !fpu->fpstate_active FPU state after the call, with random,
> invalid data in the xsave area.
But why does this matter? We just did a !fpu.fpstate_active check, so
we can't have a !fpu.fpstate_active before or after the call.
--
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