[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] x86: xsave/xrstor support, ucontext_t extensions
    Suresh Siddha wrote:
    > hpa, What is the virtualization problem? Are you referring to perf problem?
    > As you noted, regular non-rt signal handlers won't need this cpuid check. It's
    > needed only for those who manually look at non-rt signal frames and interpret it.
    > And also, they can do this check only once and not everytime.

    No, relying on CPUID and vdso both have implications for virtualization.

    > To me, prtcl() just seems to be an overkill.

    I don't think it is ... it's not overkill but rather "underkill"... it's
    a low-performance solution but it's guaranteed to be safe in the
    presence of virtualization of all its various ilk. Note that you don't
    need to be able to *set* the format via prctl(), just *query* (get) it.

    Using prctl() allows us to make this personality-dependent if we ever
    need to.

    > While restoring from the user, kernel also need to find out what layout
    > the user is passing. So it's bi-directional. I prefer the same mechanism
    > (using cookies/magic numbers etc inaddition to uc_flags or cpuid checks) to
    > interpret the fpstate for both user/kernel.

    No, it really doesn't: the kernel only needs to be able to read the same
    format as it itself wrote.

    > ARM also seem to be using similar things while extending their ucontext_t,
    > with out other kernel interfaces to indicate the layout.
    > BTW, how come 32bit kernel doesn't have the X86_FXSR_MAGIC checks, while restoring
    > the extended fxsave data from _fpstate?

    Again, the kernel already knows the format, so it doesn't need to check.


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-05-22 23:13    [W:0.047 / U:0.212 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site