lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 07/10] x86/xsaves: Fix PTRACE frames for XSAVES
From
Date
On 04/29/2016 03:30 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:25:34PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 03/04/2016 10:12 AM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
>>> + for (i = 0; i < XFEATURE_MAX; i++) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * Copy only in-use xstates.
>>> + */
>>> + if (((header.xfeatures >> i) & 1) && xfeature_enabled(i)) {
>>> + void *src = get_xsave_addr_no_check(xsave, i);
>>
>> How could a bit in header.xfeatures get set if it is not set in
>> xfeature_enabled() aka xfeatures_mask aka XCR0?
>
> Do you mean, we should test xfeature_enabled(i) first, like,
>
> if (xfeature_enabled(i) && ((header.xfeatures >> i) & 1)) ?
>
> The result will be the same, like you said, if XCR0[i] is not set,
> hader.xfeatures[i] cannot be set. But if XCR0[i] is set,
> header.xfeatures[i] can be cleared.

I think the xfeature_enabled(i) is probably redundant. Does it serve
any actual purpose?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-04-30 00:41    [W:0.135 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site