[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:0.112 / U:52.300 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site