From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754234AbcEBQPx (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 2 May 2016 12:15:53 -0400
Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:3527 "EHLO mga03.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752309AbcEBQPq (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 2 May 2016 12:15:46 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,568,1455004800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="944535557"
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 09:11:35 -0700
From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/10] x86/xsaves: Re-enable XSAVES
Message-ID: <20160502161135.GA21625@test-lenovo>
References: <cover.1457038929.git.yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
 <fa1efcfe34e0953385377d567d28bb2ef13fd3c6.1457038929.git.yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
 <5723C4CF.3050209@linux.intel.com>
 <20160429231252.GA15765@test-lenovo>
 <5723FF0C.2020905@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5723FF0C.2020905@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 05:40:44PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> That's better than what we had before, but it relies entirely on testing
> coverage and runtime checks.
> 
> Is it too much to ask that you also take a look and audit all the places
> the XSAVE buffer is accessed in the kernel and ensure that they either
> have code to handle standard vs. compacted/supervisor or don't care for
> some reason?
> 
> I did such an audit once upon a time, but I think it would be a good
> exercise to repeat both by a second set of eyes and because some time
> has passed.

I think there are 12 files that can be directly impacted by XSAVES. 

	arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h
	arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/types.h
	arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/xstate.h
	arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/sigcontext.h
	arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
	arch/x86/kernel/fpu/core.c
	arch/x86/kernel/fpu/init.c
	arch/x86/kernel/fpu/regset.c
	arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c
	arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.c
	arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
	arch/x86/mm/mpx.c

They have been reviewed from the perspective of the compacted format.
Please let me know anything else.