Re: Kernel oops with 2.6.26, padlock and ipsec: probably problem with fpu state changes

Herbert Xu
2008-08-10T03:05:46Z

On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 12:37:24PM -0700, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 11:52:24AM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> > Backing out lazy allocation is not just enough here. Let me think a little
> > more on this.
>
> Can we have something like irq_ts_save() and irq_ts_restore(), which will
> do something like:
>
> int irq_ts_save()
> {
> if (!in_interrupt())
> return 0;
>
> if (read_cr0() & X86_CR0_TS) {
> clts();
> return 1;
> }
> return 0;
> }
>
> void irq_ts_restore(int TS_state)
> {
> if (!in_interrupt())
> return 0;

This check isn't necessary.

>
> if (TS_state)
> stts();
> }

But yes this scheme looks good to me.

> kernel_fpu_begin:
> ...
>
> local_irq_disable();
>
> if (me->status & TS_USEDFPU)
> __save_init_fpu(me->task);
> else
> clts();
>
> local_irq_enable();
> ...

Couldn't we just move clts before the USEDFPU check? That huld
close the window.

Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt