[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190118213717.fkbj5jmcdok7dbmb@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 22:37:17 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/22] x86/fpu: Remove fpu->initialized usage in
copy_fpstate_to_sigframe()
On 2019-01-18 13:17:28 [-0800], Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 1/18/19 1:14 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > The kernel saves task's FPU registers on user's signal stack before
> > entering the signal handler. Can we avoid that and have in-kernel memory
> > for that? Does someone rely on the FPU registers from the task in the
> > signal handler?
>
> This is part of our ABI for *sure*.
I missed that part. I will try to look it up and look see if says
something about optional part.
But ABI means we must keep doing it even if there are no users?
> Inspecting that state is how
> userspace makes sense of MPX or protection keys faults. We even use
> this in selftests/.
Okay. MPX does not check for FP_XSTATE_MAGIC[12] and simply assumes it
is there. That is why I didn't find it.
So we would break MPX. But then MPX is on its way out, so…
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists