lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/8] x86, fpu: kill save_init_fpu(), change math_error() to use unlazy_fpu()
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 03:02:00PM -0500, riel@redhat.com wrote:
> From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
>
> math_error() calls save_init_fpu() after conditional_sti(), this means
> that the caller can be preempted. If !use_eager_fpu() we can hit the
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!__thread_has_fpu(tsk)) and/or save the wrong FPU state.
>
> Change math_error() to use unlazy_fpu() and kill save_init_fpu().
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/fpu-internal.h | 18 ------------------
> arch/x86/kernel/traps.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu-internal.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu-internal.h
> index 0dbc08282291..27d00e04f911 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu-internal.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu-internal.h
> @@ -520,24 +520,6 @@ static inline void __save_fpu(struct task_struct *tsk)
> }
>
> /*
> - * These disable preemption on their own and are safe
> - */
> -static inline void save_init_fpu(struct task_struct *tsk)
> -{
> - WARN_ON_ONCE(!__thread_has_fpu(tsk));
> -
> - if (use_eager_fpu()) {
> - __save_fpu(tsk);
> - return;
> - }
> -
> - preempt_disable();
> - __save_init_fpu(tsk);
> - __thread_fpu_end(tsk);
> - preempt_enable();
> -}
> -
> -/*
> * i387 state interaction
> */
> static inline unsigned short get_fpu_cwd(struct task_struct *tsk)
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c b/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> index fb4cb6adf225..51c465846f06 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> @@ -663,7 +663,7 @@ static void math_error(struct pt_regs *regs, int error_code, int trapnr)
> /*
> * Save the info for the exception handler and clear the error.
> */
> - save_init_fpu(task);
> + unlazy_fpu(task);

Do I see it correctly that even with this there's a not-so-small hole
*after* conditional_sti() and *before* unlazy_fpu() where caller can
still get preempted?

Thanks.

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-16 22:21    [W:0.138 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site