[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <215C3E0E-EFBC-4842-92C8-C715F6A1B3B0@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 02:54:03 +0000
From: "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
CC: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@...el.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/21] x86/fpu/xstate: Calculate and remember dynamic
xstate buffer sizes
On Jan 27, 2021, at 01:38, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 01:23:35AM +0000, Bae, Chang Seok wrote:
>> Okay. I will prepare a separate cleanup patch that can be applied at the end
>> of the series. Will post the change in this thread at first.
>
> No, this is not how this works. Imagine you pile up a patch at the end
> for each review feedback you've gotten. No, this will be an insane churn
> and an unreviewable mess.
>
> What you do is you rework your patches like everyone else.
Yeah, it makes sense. I will post v4.
> Also, thinking about this more, I'm wondering if all those
> xstate-related attributes shouldn't be part of struct fpu instead of
> being scattered around like that.
>
> That thing - struct fpu * - gets passed in everywhere anyway so all that
> min_size, max_size, ->xstate_ptr and whatever, looks like it wants to be
> part of struct fpu. Then maybe you won't need the accessors...
Well, min_size and max_size are not task-specific. So, it will be wasteful to
include in struct fpu.
I will follow your suggestion to add new helpers to access the size values,
instead of exporting them.
>>>> @@ -627,13 +627,18 @@ static void check_xstate_against_struct(int nr)
>>>> */
>>>
>>> <-- There's a comment over this function that might need adjustment.
>>
>> Do you mean an empty line? (Just want to clarify.)
>
> No, I mean this comment:
>
> * Dynamic XSAVE features allocate their own buffers and are not
> * covered by these checks. Only the size of the buffer for task->fpu
> * is checked here.
>
> That probably needs adjusting as you do set min and max size here now
> for the dynamic buffer.
Oh, I see. Thank you.
>> Agreed. I will prepare a patch. At least will post the diff here.
>
> You can send it separately from this patchset, ontop of current
> tip/master, so that I can take it now.
Posted, [1]. After all, the proposal is to remove the helper.
Thanks,
Chang
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210203024052.15789-1-chang.seok.bae@intel.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists