On 03/25/2015 05:45 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > So far I do not understand this discussion ;) I didn't see the patches > and other emails...
Hi Oleg, My patch set apparently didn't make it to LKML, but here are the two relevant ones. We're essentially replacing the MPX use of fpu_save_init(). CPUs with MPX should entirely have eager FPU mode on. But, the edges of the MPX code (do_bounds()) will call this to distinguish a plain #BR exception from a #BR caused by MPX. It may get called on CPUs without eager FPU mode on. > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/daveh/x86-mpx.git/commit/?h=mpx-v16&id=92d3e7c1664f766142904904e27e126888adb8a7 > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/daveh/x86-mpx.git/commit/?h=mpx-v16&id=18049953ae43a7ffa084a01613c1684bdf24dd2e All that the MPX code wants here is to read the in-memory copy of the MPX registers, or error out. So, for the purposes of this series: With the (so far unmerged to Linus's tree) changes to unlazy_fpu(), does tsk_get_xsave_field()'s use of unlazy_fpu() look correct? Should we also be renaming tsk_get_xsave_field() to something more appropriate? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
