[lkml]   [2015]   [Jan]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: question about save_xstate_sig() - WHY DOES THIS WORK?
Hash: SHA1

On 01/24/2015 03:20 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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) {
> preempt_disable(); if (__thread_has_fpu(tsk)) { if
> (use_eager_fpu()) { __save_fpu(tsk); } else {
> __save_init_fpu(tsk); __thread_fpu_end(tsk); } } preempt_enable();
> }

> 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...

Looking at the code some more, I do not see any call site of
save_init_fpu() that actually needs or wants __thread_fpu_end(),
with or without eager fpu mode.

It looks like we can get rid of that.

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

I suppose do_bounds() probably should save the fpu context while
not preemptible, but that may also mean moving conditional_sti()
until after save_init_fpu() or __save_init_fpu() has been called.

> - 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 irq?
> 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?

I got lost in the core dump code trying to figure out whether this is
safe or broken. I'll need some more time to look through that code...

- --
All rights reversed
Version: GnuPG v1


 \ /
  Last update: 2015-01-27 00:41    [W:0.198 / U:4.800 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site