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 S1754471AbcEBQGv (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 2 May 2016 12:06:51 -0400
Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:36997 "EHLO mga03.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754393AbcEBQGm (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 2 May 2016 12:06:42 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,568,1455004800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="944529366"
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/10] x86/xsaves: Introduce a new check that allows
 correct xstates copy from kernel to user directly
To: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
References: <cover.1457038929.git.yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
 <b4b6fd6f2b928474748abb3d842aef025cbd10da.1457038929.git.yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
 <5723BF63.2000100@linux.intel.com> <20160429224338.GA15757@test-lenovo>
 <5723FE20.7000906@linux.intel.com> <20160502155734.GA21577@test-lenovo>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <57277B11.9080802@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 09:06:41 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160502155734.GA21577@test-lenovo>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 05/02/2016 08:57 AM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 05:36:48PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> If may_copy_fpregs_to_sigframe() were called from a slightly different
>> context, or if we change the call-site, what breaks?
>>
>> In other words. if we can still "may_copy_fpregs_to_sigframe()" no
>> matter the state of fpu.fpstate_active, then I don't think we should be
>> checking it in may_copy_fpregs_to_sigframe().
> 
> Do you mean, don't check fpu.fpstate_active here?

Not really.  I'm asking *why* the check is there.