linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/22] x86/fpu: Remove fpu->initialized usage in copy_fpstate_to

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190122134015.GI26587@zn.tnic>
Date:   Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:40:15 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, 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 Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 12:21:17PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> And in any case I do not understand the idea to use the second
> in-kernel struct fpu. A signal handler can be interrupted by another
> signal, this will need to save/restore the FPU state again.

Well, we were just speculating whether doing that would simplify the
code around get_sigframe() et al. But if that is an ABI, then we can't
really touch it.

Btw, where is that whole ABI deal about saving FPU regs on the user
signal stack documented?

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.