[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cbb4c3de-1e12-c325-fa7f-40bc63c495e7@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 14:13:05 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: x86@...nel.org, jannh@...gle.com, riel@...riel.com,
mingo@...hat.com, bp@...e.de, Jason@...c4.com, luto@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, rkrcmar@...hat.com, mingo@...nel.org,
hpa@...or.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com,
kurt.kanzenbach@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/fpu: Don't unconditionally add
XFEATURE_MASK_FPSSE on sigentry
On 4/25/19 10:35 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> This commit reverts commit 04944b793e18e ("x86: xsave: set FP, SSE bits
> in the xsave header in the user sigcontext"). The commit claims that it
> is required for legacy applications but fails to explain why this is
> needed and it is not obvious to me why the application would require the
> FP/SSE state in the signal handler.
Any software that understands XSAVE is OK. I think the legacy software
would be that which groks 'fxregs_state, and FXSAVE/FXRSTOR but does not
comprehend XSAVE/XRSTOR. *That* software might change fxregs_state in
the signal frame, but the lack of XFEATURE_MASK_FPSSE in xfeatures would
prevent XRSTOR from restoring it.
That's just a guess, though.
If we care, I think we should just use XSAVE instead of XSAVEOPT and
trying to reconstruct the init state in software.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists