[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160502161135.GA21625@test-lenovo>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 09:11:35 -0700
From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/10] x86/xsaves: Re-enable XSAVES
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 05:40:44PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> That's better than what we had before, but it relies entirely on testing
> coverage and runtime checks.
>
> Is it too much to ask that you also take a look and audit all the places
> the XSAVE buffer is accessed in the kernel and ensure that they either
> have code to handle standard vs. compacted/supervisor or don't care for
> some reason?
>
> I did such an audit once upon a time, but I think it would be a good
> exercise to repeat both by a second set of eyes and because some time
> has passed.
I think there are 12 files that can be directly impacted by XSAVES.
arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h
arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/types.h
arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/xstate.h
arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sigcontext.h
arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
arch/x86/kernel/fpu/core.c
arch/x86/kernel/fpu/init.c
arch/x86/kernel/fpu/regset.c
arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c
arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.c
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
arch/x86/mm/mpx.c
They have been reviewed from the perspective of the compacted format.
Please let me know anything else.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists