Re: [PATCH v8 08/10] x86, mpx: add prctl commands PR_MPX_REGISTER, PR_MPX_UNREGISTER

[One Thousand Gnomes]

> The base of the bounds directory is set into mm_struct during
> PR_MPX_REGISTER command execution. This member can be used to
> check whether one application is mpx enabled.

Not really because by the time you ask the question another thread might
have decided to unregister it.


> +int mpx_register(struct task_struct *tsk)
> +{
> +	struct mm_struct *mm = tsk->mm;
> +
> +	if (!cpu_has_mpx)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * runtime in the userspace will be responsible for allocation of
> +	 * the bounds directory. Then, it will save the base of the bounds
> +	 * directory into XSAVE/XRSTOR Save Area and enable MPX through
> +	 * XRSTOR instruction.
> +	 *
> +	 * fpu_xsave() is expected to be very expensive. In order to do
> +	 * performance optimization, here we get the base of the bounds
> +	 * directory and then save it into mm_struct to be used in future.
> +	 */
> +	mm->bd_addr = task_get_bounds_dir(tsk);
> +	if (!mm->bd_addr)
> +		return -EINVAL;

What stops two threads calling this in parallel ?
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +int mpx_unregister(struct task_struct *tsk)
> +{
> +	struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
> +
> +	if (!cpu_has_mpx)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	mm->bd_addr = NULL;

or indeed calling this in parallel

What are the semantics across execve() ?

Alan
--
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/