From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/22] x86/fpu: Remove fpu->initialized usage in copy_fpstate_to_sigframe() Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 12:21:17 +0100 Message-ID: <20190121112117.GA32538@redhat.com> References: <20190109114744.10936-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20190109114744.10936-6-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20190116193603.GK15409@zn.tnic> <20190116224037.xkfnevzkwrck5dtt@linutronix.de> <20190117122253.GC5023@zn.tnic> <20190118211401.4komqsnvuof7563p@linutronix.de> <33f0e144-1eec-b1a1-8858-58f20d5e477d@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Borislav Petkov , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski , Paolo Bonzini , Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Jason A. Donenfeld" , Rik van Riel , Dave Hansen To: Dave Hansen Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <33f0e144-1eec-b1a1-8858-58f20d5e477d@intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 01/18, Dave Hansen wrote: > > On 1/18/19 1:14 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > The kernel saves task's FPU registers on user's signal stack before > > entering the signal handler. Can we avoid that and have in-kernel memory > > for that? Does someone rely on the FPU registers from the task in the > > signal handler? > > This is part of our ABI for *sure*. Inspecting that state is how > userspace makes sense of MPX or protection keys faults. We even use > this in selftests/. Yes. And in any case I do not understand the idea to use the second in-kernel struct fpu. A signal handler can be interrupted by another signal, this will need to save/restore the FPU state again. Oleg.