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 S1755180AbcEBVWh (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 2 May 2016 17:22:37 -0400
Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:18713 "EHLO mga14.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754953AbcEBVW3 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 2 May 2016 17:22:29 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,569,1455004800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="695752064"
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:18:17 -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 04/10] x86/xsaves: Introduce a new check that allows
 correct xstates copy from kernel to user directly
Message-ID: <20160502211817.GA22492@test-lenovo>
References: <b4b6fd6f2b928474748abb3d842aef025cbd10da.1457038929.git.yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
 <5723BF63.2000100@linux.intel.com>
 <20160429224338.GA15757@test-lenovo>
 <5723FE20.7000906@linux.intel.com>
 <20160502155734.GA21577@test-lenovo>
 <57277B11.9080802@linux.intel.com>
 <20160502163410.GA21734@test-lenovo>
 <572783C3.8040907@linux.intel.com>
 <20160502171936.GA22224@test-lenovo>
 <57278F56.6050600@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <57278F56.6050600@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 Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:33:10AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 05/02/2016 10:19 AM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 09:43:47AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >>> If (fpu.fpstate_active == 0), then the task does not use FPU; we don't
> >>> want to save these registers, right?  
> >>
> >> No.  It's possible to have fpstate_active=0 while fpregs_active=1.  Such
> >> a task uses the FPU, but just hasn't done an XSAVE* to save the register
> >> content to the fpstate buffer.
> >>
> >> Note, this is just theoretical, and does not happen in this particular
> >> call path today.
> > 
> > What about...
> > 
> > static int may_copy_fpregs_to_sigframe(void)
> > {
> > 	if (fpregs_active())
> > 		return 1;
> > 
> > 	WARN_ONCE(!current->thread.fpu.fpstate_active,
> > 		  "direct FPU save with no math use\n");
> > 
> > 	if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_XSAVES))
> > 		return 1;
> > 
> > 	return 0;
> > } 
> 
> I don't think that changes anything.  We still have a check in there
> that has no purpose.  You've changed the ordering so that the specific
> example that I pointed out no longer triggers it.  But, the underlying
> issue remains.

Before Linux gets into copy_fpstate_to_sigframe(),
current->thread.fpu.fpstate_active must be true.
For eagerfpu, fpregs_active() must also be true.
For lazyfpu, once we try to do FSAVE/FXSAVE/XSAVE,
fpregs_active() will become true as well.

We should have not based on boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_XSAVES)
at all. 

Why don't we make it simple and always copy_fpregs_to_signal_frame()?
Or, only for the lazy case, i.e. !fpregs_active(), we do __copy_to_user().

Anyway, I think we can just replace may_copy_fpregs_to_sigframe() with
!fpregs_active().

Comments?