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 S1756732AbbCEPRo (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:17:44 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43706 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1756645AbbCEPRn (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:17:43 -0500
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:14:42 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@oracle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Pekka Riikonen <priikone@iki.fi>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: Oops with tip/x86/fpu
Message-ID: <20150305151442.GA18996@redhat.com>
References: <54F74F59.5070107@intel.com> <20150304190651.GA5589@redhat.com> <20150304200612.GO3663@pd.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150304200612.GO3663@pd.tnic>
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 03/04, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 08:06:51PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Thanks. I'll try to investigate tomorrow.
> >
> > Well, the kernel crashes because xrstor_state() is buggy, Quentin already
> > has a fix.
> >
> > But #GP should be explained...
>
> Could it be one of those conditions for which XRSTORS #GPs, like
>
> "If XRSTORS attempts to load MXCSR with an illegal value, a
> general-protection exception (#GP) occurs."
>
> for example? I'm looking at the SDM section for XRSTORS.
>
> I mean, math_state_restore() does init_fpu() and down that road we're
> allocating an FPU state ... but we did init_fpu() before too, in
> eager_fpu_init(). So what changed?

I _think_ that the difference is that eager_fpu_init()->xrstor_state()
was called before apply_alternatives(), so it used XRSTOR.

Note also that (before this commit) restore_fpu_checking() was almost
never called right after init_fpu(). If use_eager_fpu() == T.

After this commit the first xrstor_state() uses XRSTORS. And that is
how (I think) 'noxsaves' makes the difference.


So. I can be easily wrong, but so far I _think_ that this commit disclosed
another problem. And even if I am wrong and this commit is buggy, we need
to understand why ;)

I'll try to think about debugging patch, I can't reproduce this problem
on my machine...

Oleg.