Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 17 Feb 2016 09:16:46 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 3031 at ./arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h:530 fpu__restore+0x90/0x130() |
| |
* Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2016 12:14 PM, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de> wrote: > > > > --- > > From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> > > Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:50:33 +0100 > > Subject: [RFC PATCH] x86/FPU: Fix double FPU regs activation > > > > On the entry_INT80_32->do_syscall_32_irqs_on path on 32-bit we run with > > interrupts enabled. > > I would change this a little bit. > > sys_sigreturn calls fpu__restore_sig with interrupts enabled. When > restoring a 32-bit signal frame, it can happen that... > > > And it can happen that we get preempted right after > > setting ->fpstate_active in a task's FPU. > > > > After we get preempted, we switch between tasks merrily and eventually > > are about to switch to that task above whose ->fpstate_active we > > set. We enter __switch_to() and do switch_fpu_prepare(). Our task gets > > ->fpregs_active set, we find ourselves back on the call stack below and > > especially in __fpu__restore_sig() which sets ->fpregs_active again. > > > > Leading to that whoops below.
So I'm wondering why this started triggering only now. Is this a pre-existing bug that somehow got triggered via:
58122bf1d856 x86/fpu: Default eagerfpu=on on all CPUs
? If yes then we need a plausible theory of how that never triggered on modern Intel CPUs that had eagerfpu enabled for years.
Or perhaps was it caused by one of the other changes in tip:x86/fpu:
c6ab109f7e0e x86/fpu: Speed up lazy FPU restores slightly a20d7297045f x86/fpu: Fold fpu_copy() into fpu__copy() 5ed73f40735c x86/fpu: Fix FNSAVE usage in eagerfpu mode 4ecd16ec7059 x86/fpu: Fix math emulation in eager fpu mode
?
Which would make this a recently introduced regression.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |