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

[Rik van Riel]

On 03/24/2015 08:18 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> I won't completely claim to understand what's going on with the FPU
>> code, but I think your analysis is a bit off.
>>
>> unlazy_fpu() does __save_init_fpu() which (among other things) calls
>> xsave to dump the CPU registers to memory.  That doesn't make any sense
>> to do if "The in-memory copy and the CPU regs match."
>>
>> IOW, unlazy_fpu() is called when the in-memory copy is garbage and takes
>> us to a state where we can look at the in-memory copy.
> 
> I think that __save_init_fpu (called by unlazy_fpu) does that, but
> __thread_fpu_end calls __thread_clear_has_fpu, which, in turn, zaps
> fpu_owner_task, which will force an unnecessary xrstor.  Or maybe not
> if we have further bugs.

Indeed, __save_init_fpu (yeah, terrible name) will save
the in-register state to memory for you, so you can
inspect it.

Is there any reason not to rename __save_init_fpu to
save_fpu_state, or just save_fpu?

-- 
All rights reversed
--
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/