[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190412152437.d2bswajqtx7hrpkb@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:24:37 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: 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 23/27] x86/fpu: Defer FPU state load until return to
userspace
On 2019-04-12 16:36:15 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 06:41:52PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > @@ -226,10 +236,9 @@ static void fpu__initialize(struct fpu *fpu)
> > {
> > WARN_ON_FPU(fpu != ¤t->thread.fpu);
> >
> > + set_thread_flag(TIF_NEED_FPU_LOAD);
> > fpstate_init(&fpu->state);
> > trace_x86_fpu_init_state(fpu);
> > -
> > - trace_x86_fpu_activate_state(fpu);
>
> That is called nowhere after this patch.
Isn't it called from fpu__clear()?
> Shouldn't it be called below, before fpregs_activate() because
> fpregs_activate() does trace_x86_fpu_regs_activated()?
Why? fpu__initialize() wipes the FPU state and starts from zero.
fpregs_mark_activate() on the other hand marks this FPU context is
currently active.
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists