lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Oct]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [OPTIONAL/RFC v2 36/39] x86/fpu: Add helper for initing features
From
On 9/29/2022 3:29 PM, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> If an xfeature is saved in a buffer, the xfeature's bit will be set in
> xsave->header.xfeatures. The CPU may opt to not save the xfeature if it
> is in it's init state. In this case the xfeature buffer address cannot
> be retrieved with get_xsave_addr().
>
> Future patches will need to handle the case of writing to an xfeature
> that may not be saved. So provide helpers to init an xfeature in an
> xsave buffer.
>
> This could of course be done directly by reaching into the xsave buffer,
> however this would not be robust against future changes to optimize the
> xsave buffer by compacting it. In that case the xsave buffer would need
> to be re-arranged as well. So the logic properly belongs encapsulated
> in a helper where the logic can be unified.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
>
> ---
>
> v2:
> - New patch
>
> arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.h | 6 ++++
> 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.c b/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.c
> index 9258fc1169cc..82cee1f2f0c8 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.c
> @@ -942,6 +942,24 @@ static void *__raw_xsave_addr(struct xregs_state *xsave, int xfeature_nr)
> return (void *)xsave + xfeature_get_offset(xcomp_bv, xfeature_nr);
> }
>
> +static int xsave_buffer_access_checks(int xfeature_nr)
> +{
> + /*
> + * Do we even *have* xsave state?
> + */
> + if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_XSAVE))
> + return 1;
> +
> + /*
> + * We should not ever be requesting features that we
> + * have not enabled.
> + */
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!xfeature_enabled(xfeature_nr)))
> + return 1;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Given the xsave area and a state inside, this function returns the
> * address of the state.
> @@ -962,17 +980,7 @@ static void *__raw_xsave_addr(struct xregs_state *xsave, int xfeature_nr)
> */
> void *get_xsave_addr(struct xregs_state *xsave, int xfeature_nr)
> {
> - /*
> - * Do we even *have* xsave state?
> - */
> - if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_XSAVE))
> - return NULL;
> -
> - /*
> - * We should not ever be requesting features that we
> - * have not enabled.
> - */
> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!xfeature_enabled(xfeature_nr)))
> + if (xsave_buffer_access_checks(xfeature_nr))
> return NULL;
>
> /*
> @@ -992,6 +1000,34 @@ void *get_xsave_addr(struct xregs_state *xsave, int xfeature_nr)
> return __raw_xsave_addr(xsave, xfeature_nr);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Given the xsave area and a state inside, this function
> + * initializes an xfeature in the buffer.

But, this function sets XSTATE_BV bits in the buffer. That does not
*initialize* the state, right?

> + *
> + * get_xsave_addr() will return NULL if the feature bit is
> + * not present in the header. This function will make it so
> + * the xfeature buffer address is ready to be retrieved by
> + * get_xsave_addr().

Looks like this is used in the next patch to help ptracer().

We have the state copy function -- copy_uabi_to_xstate() that retrieves
the address using __raw_xsave_addr() instead of get_xsave_addr(), copies
the state, and then updates XSTATE_BV.

__raw_xsave_addr() also ensures whether the state is in the compacted
format or not. I think you can use it.

Also, I'm curious about the reason why you want to update XSTATE_BV
first with this new helper.

Overall, I'm not sure these new helpers are necessary.

Thanks,
Chang

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-10-03 21:08    [W:3.459 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site