Re: [PATCH v4 10/10] x86/xsaves: Re-enable XSAVES

[Yu-cheng Yu]

On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 03:15:38PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 05/02/2016 09:11 AM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 05:40:44PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> That's better than what we had before, but it relies entirely on testing
> >> coverage and runtime checks.
> >>
> >> Is it too much to ask that you also take a look and audit all the places
> >> the XSAVE buffer is accessed in the kernel and ensure that they either
> >> have code to handle standard vs. compacted/supervisor or don't care for
> >> some reason?
> >>
> >> I did such an audit once upon a time, but I think it would be a good
> >> exercise to repeat both by a second set of eyes and because some time
> >> has passed.
> > 
> > I think there are 12 files that can be directly impacted by XSAVES. 
> > 
> > 	arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h
> > 	arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/types.h
> > 	arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/xstate.h
> > 	arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sigcontext.h
> > 	arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> > 	arch/x86/kernel/fpu/core.c
> > 	arch/x86/kernel/fpu/init.c
> > 	arch/x86/kernel/fpu/regset.c
> > 	arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c
> > 	arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.c
> > 	arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > 	arch/x86/mm/mpx.c
> > 
> > They have been reviewed from the perspective of the compacted format.
> > Please let me know anything else.
> 
> Can you double-check that nothing has changed in mainline (or tip for
> that matter) since you first did these checks?

Yes.  I am also doing some tests now.