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: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:15:51 +0100 Message-ID: <20190122161551.GB9745@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> <20190121112117.GA32538@redhat.com> <20190122134015.GI26587@zn.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Dave Hansen , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , 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: Borislav Petkov Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190122134015.GI26587@zn.tnic> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 01/22, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > 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? I don't know... tried to google, found nothing. the comment in /usr/include/sys/ucontext.h mentions SysV/i386 ABI + historical reasons, this didn't help. Oleg.