Re: [PATCH 02/19] x86, fpu: wrap get_xsave_addr() to make it safer

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 8 May 2015, Dave Hansen wrote:
> The MPX code appears to be saving off the FPU in an unsafe
> way.   It does not disable preemption or ensure that the
> FPU state has been allocated.
> 
> This patch introduces a new helper which will do both of
> those things internally.

This changelog does not really match the implementation. Unless I'm
missing something I can't find anything preemption related.

> +
> +/*
> + * This wraps up the common operations that need to occur when retrieving
> + * data from xsave state.  It first ensures that the current task was
> + * using the FPU and retrieves the data in to a buffer.  It then calculates
> + * the offset of the requested field in the buffer.
> + *
> + * This function is safe to call whether the FPU is in use or not.
> + *
> + * Note that this only works on the current task.
> + *
> + * Inputs:
> + *	@xsave_field: state which is defined in xsave.h (e.g. XSTATE_FP,
> + *	XSTATE_SSE, etc...)
> + * Output:
> + *	address of the state in the xsave area.

  or NULL in case of .....

> + */
> +void *get_xsave_field(int xsave_field)
> +{
> +	union thread_xstate *xstate;
> +
> +	if (!tsk_used_math(current))
> +		return NULL;
> +	/*
> +	 * unlazy_fpu() is poorly named and will actually
> +	 * save the xstate off in to the memory buffer.
> +	 */
> +	unlazy_fpu(current);
> +	xstate = current->thread.fpu.state;
> +
> +	return get_xsave_addr(&xstate->xsave, xsave_field);
> +}

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/