[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <D7000856-4F6F-4BCB-A72E-4624A4A81C31@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 04:10:11 +0000
From: "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
CC: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/21] x86/fpu/xstate: Introduce helpers to manage
dynamic xstate buffers
On Jan 26, 2021, at 12:17, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 07:57:03AM -0800, Chang S. Bae wrote:
>>
>> +int alloc_xstate_buffer(struct fpu *fpu, u64 mask)
<snip>
>> + if (newsz > fpu_kernel_xstate_max_size) {
>> + pr_warn_once("x86/fpu: xstate buffer too large (%u > %u bytes)\n",
>> + newsz, fpu_kernel_xstate_max_size);
>> + XSTATE_WARN_ON(1);
>> + return 0;
>
> return 0?!? On an error?!?
With more discussions, I now think it is too much to check like this. This
function (merely) allocates the requested size. So, going to remove it.
Thanks,
Chang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists