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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 12 Apr 2019 18:22:13 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <>
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Paolo Bonzini <>,
        Radim Krčmář <>,, "Jason A. Donenfeld" <>,
        Rik van Riel <>,
        Dave Hansen <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 23/27] x86/fpu: Defer FPU state load until return to

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 05:24:37PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Isn't it called from fpu__clear()?

$ git grep trace_x86_fpu_activate_state

all 23 patches applied. Grepping the later patches doesn't give
trace_x86_fpu_activate_state() either.

> > 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.

Well, then the naming still needs adjusting.

"trace_x86_fpu_activate_state" reads to me like the state is being
activated here, at the call site. And fpregs_mark_activate() marks which
*fpu is the active one.



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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists