Re: [PATCH 01/17] x86, fpu: wrap get_xsave_addr() to make it safer

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 03/24/2015 03:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Your function appears to be getting it for write (I assume that's what
>> the unlazy_fpu is for), so I'd rather have it called
>> tsk_get_xsave_field_for_write or something like that.
>
> It should be entirely read-only.
>
> For MPX (the only user of get_xsave_addr() iirc), we are only worried
> about getting the status codes (and addresses) out of the bndstatus
> register and making sure that the kernel-recorded bounds directory
> address matches the bndcfgu (configuration) register.
>
> We don't ever write to the registers.

So why are you unlazying it?

IIUC, the xstae for current can be in one of three logical states:

1. Live in CPU regs.  The in-memory copy is garbage and the state is
in CPU regs.
2. Lazy.  The in-memory copy and the CPU regs match.  Writing to
either copy is illegal.
3. In memory only.  Writing to the in-memory copy is safe.

IIUC, you want to read the xstate, do you're okay with #2 or #3.  This
would be tsk_get_xsave_field_for_read in my terminology.

If you want to write the xstate, you'd need to be in state #3, which
would be tsk_get_xsave_field_for_write.

IIUC, unlazy_fpu just moves from from state 2 to 3.

I could be totally wrong for any number of reasons, though.

--Andy

-- 
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/