From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/22] x86/fpu: Remove fpu->initialized usage in
 copy_fpstate_to_sigframe()
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:40:15 +0100
Message-ID: <20190122134015.GI26587@zn.tnic>
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>
 <20190121112117.GA32538@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190121112117.GA32538@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 12:21:17PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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.

Well, we were just speculating whether doing that would simplify the
code around get_sigframe() et al. But if that is an ABI, then we can't
really touch it.

Btw, where is that whole ABI deal about saving FPU regs on the user
signal stack documented?

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.