[lkml]   [2015]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: question about save_xstate_sig() - WHY DOES THIS WORK?
Let me abuse this thread to ask more questions.

Peter, could you help?

On 01/23, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Not only is this broken with my new code, but it looks like it may
> be broken with the current code, too...

As I already mentioned, at least math_error()->save_init_fpu() looks
buggy. And unlazy_fpu() doesn't look right too.

Note that save_init_fpu() is calles after conditional_sti(), so unless
I missed something the task can be preempted and we can actually hit
WARN_ON_ONCE(!__thread_has_fpu()) if !use_eager_fpu() && .fpu_counter == 0.

Worse, the unconditional __save_init_fpu() is obviously wrong in this case.

I already have a patch which (like the patch from Rik) turns it into

static inline void save_init_fpu(struct task_struct *tsk)
if (__thread_has_fpu(tsk)) {
if (use_eager_fpu()) {
} else {

and I think this fix needs the separate patch/changelog.

Now the questions:

- This doesn't hurt, but does it really need __thread_fpu_end?

Perhaps this is because we do not check the error code returned
by __save_init_fpu? although I am not sure I understand the comment
above fpu_save_init correctly...

- What about do_bounds() ? Should not it use save_init_fpu() rather
than fpu_save_init() ?

- Why unlazy_fpu() always does __save_init_fpu() even if use_eager_fpu?

and note that in this case __thread_fpu_end() is wrong if use_eager_fpu,
but fortunately the only possible caller of unlazy_fpu() is coredump.
fpu_copy() checks use_eager_fpu().

- Is unlazy_fpu()->__save_init_fpu() safe wrt __kernel_fpu_begin() from

I mean, is it safe if __save_init_fpu() path is interrupted by another
__save_init_fpu() + restore_fpu_checking() from __kernel_fpu_begin/end?



 \ /
  Last update: 2015-01-24 21:41    [W:0.333 / U:11.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site