Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/fpu: math_state_restore() should not blindly disable irqs

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Please don't.  IMO it's really nice that we don't use trap gates at
>> all on x86_64, and I find the conditional_sti thing much nicer than
>> having to audit all of the entry code to see whether it's safe to run
>> it with IRQs on.
>
> So I'm not sure I see much difference, but I'd certainly be ok with
> just moving the "conditional_sti()" up unconditionally to be the first
> thing in do_device_not_available().

I'd be fine with that.  The important difference is that it's after swapgs.

--Andy

>
> The point being that we still *not* just randomly enable interrupts
> because we decide that the callers are wrong.
>
>                        Linus



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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/