Messages in this thread | | | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [patch V3 59/66] x86/fpu/signal: Move initial checks into fpu__sig_restore() | Date | Tue, 22 Jun 2021 20:43:16 +0200 |
| |
On Tue, Jun 22 2021 at 20:38, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22 2021 at 19:35, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 04:19:22PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> >>> + if (unlikely(!buf)) { >>> + fpu__clear_user_states(¤t->thread.fpu); >> >> You could declare >> >> struct fpu *fpu = &tsk->thread.fpu; >> >> above so that it is easier to read, as this call is done twice. >> >> Also, you can do: >> >> int ret = 0; >> >> if (unlikely(!buf)) >> goto out; >> >> so that the exit paths converge at the end. > > I pondered, but look at the condition there. It gets unreadable. > > So I kept is as is because this is an intentional clear which returns > success and the other is on error. > >>> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64) && !static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_FPU)) { >> >> cpu_feature_enabled() >> >>> + return fpregs_soft_set(current, NULL, 0, >>> + sizeof(struct user_i387_ia32_struct), >>> + NULL, buf); >> >> Err, don't you need to catch retval into ret here and goto out, like >> before, so that you can call fpu__clear_user_states() on error? > > Yes. Actually we should do that as a separate patch way earlier in the > series. Sigh.
Bah, no. I screwed that up. Blush
| |