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 S1758774AbbA2V5z (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:57:55 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46960 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753388AbbA2V5x (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:57:53 -0500
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 22:56:38 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@gmail.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3]: x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu fixes/cleanups
Message-ID: <20150129215638.GB1045@redhat.com>
References: <54C2A245.4010307@redhat.com> <20150129210723.GA31584@redhat.com> <54CAA357.1070108@linux.intel.com> <20150129213346.GA32511@redhat.com> <54CAA973.4050401@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54CAA973.4050401@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 01/29, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> On 01/29/2015 01:33 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 01/29, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >>
> >> On 01/29/2015 01:07 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >>> On 01/23, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >>>>> Not only is this broken with my new code, but it looks like it may
> >>>>> be broken with the current code, too...
> >>> Lets (try to) fix unlazy_fpu/save_init_fpu at least.
> >>>
> >>> Dave, fpu_save_init() in do_bounds() and task_get_bounds_dir() looks
> >>> wrong too, shouldn't it use unlazy_fpu() ? See the changelog in 3/3.
> >>
> >> IIRC, the 'cpu_has_xsaveopt' on the CPUs that support will MPX will
> >> enable eagerfpu.
> >
> > unless eagerfpu=off? but this doesn't matter.
>
> Yeah, that's true.  That would also explain why I haven't run in to this
> at all in testing.
>
> Ugh, fpu_save_init() says it isn't preempt safe anyway, so we shouldn't
> be using it.

Yes, plus (I _think_) _init can add more problems.

> I'll send a fix.

How about the trivial patch below (on top of this series) ?

Oleg.

--- x/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
+++ x/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
@@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ dotraplinkage void do_bounds(struct pt_r
 	 * It is not directly accessible, though, so we need to
 	 * do an xsave and then pull it out of the xsave buffer.
 	 */
-	fpu_save_init(&tsk->thread.fpu);
+	unlazy_fpu(tsk);
 	xsave_buf = &(tsk->thread.fpu.state->xsave);
 	bndcsr = get_xsave_addr(xsave_buf, XSTATE_BNDCSR);
 	if (!bndcsr)
--- x/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c
+++ x/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c
@@ -352,7 +352,7 @@ static __user void *task_get_bounds_dir(
 	 * The bounds directory pointer is stored in a register
 	 * only accessible if we first do an xsave.
 	 */
-	fpu_save_init(&tsk->thread.fpu);
+	unlazy_fpu(tsk);
 	bndcsr = get_xsave_addr(&tsk->thread.fpu.state->xsave, XSTATE_BNDCSR);
 	if (!bndcsr)
 		return MPX_INVALID_BOUNDS_DIR;