Re: Candidate Linux ABI for Intel AMX and hypothetical new related features

[Borislav Petkov]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 04:12:25PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> To detect features and control XCR0, we add some new arch_prctls:
> 
> arch_prctl(ARCH_GET_XCR0_SUPPORT, 0, ...);
> 
> returns the set of XCR0 bits supported on the current kernel.
> 
> arch_prctl(ARCH_GET_XCR0_LAZY_SUPPORT, 0, ...);
> 
> returns 0.  See below.
> 
> arch_prctl(ARCH_SET_XCR0, xcr0, lazy_states, sigsave_states,
> sigclear_states, 0);

Right, but I'd simply replace that "XCR0" arch detail, more or less,
with "XSTATE":

ARCH_GET_XSTATE_SUPPORT
ARCH_GET_XSTATE_LAZY_SUPPORT
ARCH_SET_XSTATE or ARCH_ENABLE_XSTATE or so

to denote that this is controlling XSTATE handling while the XCR0 thing
is the control register and when in the future something else does
control that (XCR0[63] is one provision for that) then we're still
on-point with the naming.

> Thoughts?

FTR, I really like the aspect of apps *requesting* handling of
non-legacy, fat states and latter remaining off otherwise in order to
keep the sanity of everyone involved.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette