On 04/29/2016 04:12 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:32:15PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: >> The reason I haven't acked this patch is that I want to be _sure_ that >> we've audited all of the call paths that access the XSAVE buffer to >> ensure that they can all either handle the XSAVES format *or* don't care >> for whatever reason. >> >> Could you share the steps that you've taken to assure yourself that all >> of the call paths are handled and we don't have more bugs? > > We tested for signal, ptrace, context switch, avx, and mpx. We also run > these tests with your audit patch to detect any format mis-match. > That said, I cannot be sure there are no more bugs. As you said, we want > to get this feature tested in the field and find potential issues early.
That's better than what we had before, but it relies entirely on testing coverage and runtime checks. Is it too much to ask that you also take a look and audit all the places the XSAVE buffer is accessed in the kernel and ensure that they either have code to handle standard vs. compacted/supervisor or don't care for some reason? I did such an audit once upon a time, but I think it would be a good exercise to repeat both by a second set of eyes and because some time has passed.
