[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <93999eea-468c-c4a7-d793-b6c82e4b26a4@citrix.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 22:42:47 +0100
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
"Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
CC: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Subject: Re: How should we handle illegal task FPU state?
On 01/10/2020 21:58, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 01:32:04PM -0700, Yu, Yu-cheng wrote:
>> On 10/1/2020 10:43 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> The question is: what do we do about it? We have two basic choices, I think.
>>>
>>> a) Decide that the saved FPU for a task *must* be valid at all times.
>>> If there's a failure to restore state, kill the task.
>>>
>>> b) Improve our failed restoration handling and maybe even
>>> intentionally make it possible to create illegal state to allow
>>> testing.
>>>
>>> (a) sounds like a nice concept, but I'm not convinced it's practical.
>>> For example, I'm not even convinced that the set of valid SSP values
>>> is documented.
> Eh, crappy SDM writing isn't a good reason to make our lives harder. The
> SSP MSRs are canonical MSRs and follow the same rules as the SYSCALL,
> FS/GS BASE, etc... MSRs. I'll file an SDM bug.
Don't forget the added constraint of being 4 byte aligned. ;)
But the SDM is fine in this regard, at least as far as Vol4 goes, even
if does have an excessively verbose way of expressing itself.
~Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists