Re: [RFC] x86: xsave/xrstor support, ucontext_t extensions

[H. Peter Anvin]

Suresh Siddha wrote:
> hpa, What is the virtualization problem? Are you referring to perf problem?
> As you noted, regular non-rt signal handlers won't need this cpuid check. It's
> needed only for those who manually look at non-rt signal frames and interpret it.
> And also, they can do this check only once and not everytime.

No, relying on CPUID and vdso both have implications for virtualization.

> To me, prtcl() just seems to be an overkill.

I don't think it is ... it's not overkill but rather "underkill"... it's 
a low-performance solution but it's guaranteed to be safe in the 
presence of virtualization of all its various ilk.  Note that you don't 
need to be able to *set* the format via prctl(), just *query* (get) it.

Using prctl() allows us to make this personality-dependent if we ever 
need to.

> While restoring from the user, kernel also need to find out what layout
> the user is passing. So it's bi-directional. I prefer the same mechanism
> (using cookies/magic numbers etc inaddition to uc_flags or cpuid checks) to
> interpret the fpstate for both user/kernel.

No, it really doesn't: the kernel only needs to be able to read the same 
format as it itself wrote.

> ARM also seem to be using similar things while extending their ucontext_t,
> with out other kernel interfaces to indicate the layout.
>
> BTW, how come 32bit kernel doesn't have the X86_FXSR_MAGIC checks, while restoring
> the extended fxsave data from _fpstate?

Again, the kernel already knows the format, so it doesn't need to check.

	-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/