[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5727D6B7.6080004@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 15:37:43 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.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 04/10] x86/xsaves: Introduce a new check that allows
correct xstates copy from kernel to user directly
On 05/02/2016 03:17 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> @@ -167,7 +168,7 @@ int copy_fpstate_to_sigframe(void __user *buf, void __user *buf_fx, int size)
> sizeof(struct user_i387_ia32_struct), NULL,
> (struct _fpstate_32 __user *) buf) ? -1 : 1;
>
> - if (fpregs_active()) {
> + if (fpregs_active() || using_compacted_format()) {
> /* Save the live register state to the user directly. */
> if (copy_fpregs_to_sigframe(buf_fx))
> return -1;
So, compared to the first patch, you move the fpregs_active() check out
to the caller of may_copy_fpregs_to_sigframe() (good) and removed a
bunch of comments explaining what was going on (bad).
Do we really want all those comments to die?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists