[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170130172303.GB27534@test-lenovo>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:23:04 -0800
From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] x86/fpu: Remove 'kbuf' parameter from the
copy_xstate_to_user() APIs
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 04:45:21PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:57:28AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Would anyone object to using u32 in these prototypes?
>
> Well, would there be any disadvantage to forcing them to u32?
> Potentially by something else wanting to use those interfaces besides
> the regset thing and that something else doesn't like u32s?
>
> Otherwise, I don't see a problem.
>
> I mean, if 4G are not enough for xstate dimensions then we have a whole
> different problem.
This function pair was intended to be similar to user_regset_copyout(),
user_regset_copyin() used for the standard-format XSAVE area copying.
I totally agree it is complex and should be simplified. Why don't we
do both places?
Yu-cheng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists