lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 0/2] x86/fpu: avoid "xstate_fault" in xsave_user/xrestore_user
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:20:15PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:00:46AM +0100, Quentin Casasnovas wrote:
> > Fair point, but AFAIUI we can't do check_insn(XSAVES) alone as of today,
> > and the "..." in your "check_isns(XSAVEOPT, ...)" code above would still
> > need to contain the outputs operands.
>
> I think we can do this (see diff the end of this mail).
>

Right, FWIW I think your approach is valid, but not very generic. Re-using
the check_insn() and making it more generic so we can widen its use felt
like a better approach to me.

AIUI, you didn't like my earlier draft because it wasn't very readable, but
I think this was just due to the (bad) example I took and by reworking it a
bit more, we could end up with the code you previously envisionned:

if (static_cpu_has_safe(X86_FEATURE_XSAVEOPT))
return check_insn(XSAVEOPT, xsave_buf, ...);
else if (static_cpu_has_safe(X86_FEATURE_XSAVES)
return check_insn(XSAVES, xsave_buf, ...);
else
return check_insn(XSAVE, xsave_buf, ...)

Or maybe you were saying the actual macros weren't readable?

> [...]
>
> But including the fault exception table in the macro is already an
> improvement IMO.

Agreed, it already looks much nicer with your diff.

Quentin


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-03-17 12:41    [W:0.195 / U:1.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site