On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 03:11:22PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> From: Borislav Petkov <b...@suse.de>
>
> Previously, we did call an XSAVE/XRSTOR variant through alternatives
> and did potential exception handling resulting from the instruction
> execution in a second inline asm. Which was misleading and error prone,
> see
>
> 06c8173eb92b ("x86/fpu/xsaves: Fix improper uses of __ex_table")
>
> for an example.
>
> Add single macros which combine the alternatives and the exception
> handling.
FWIW I think this looks much nicer! I have a couple of comments though,
apologies in advance if they aren't relevant :)
>
> While at it, remove the SYSTEM_BOOTING checks in favor of
> static_cpu_has_safe() which works regardless of system state.
>
I thought the SYSTEM_BOOTING checks were present to make sure we call these
functions only when the alternative instructions had *not* been applied
(i.e. when SYSTEM_BOOTING). We could have added the opposite checks in
xsave_state()/xrstor_state() to make sure the alternative instructions are
applied when these are called (i.e. when !SYSTEM_BOOTING).
In the unlikely event where I'm not wrong about this, having a nicely named
helper altinstr_are_applied() instead of manually checking the system_state
variable would probably help!
But maybe we're pretty confident this will not happen anyway?
> Cleanup comments.
>
> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <b...@suse.de>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <h...@zytor.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasno...@oracle.com>
> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>
> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/xsave.h | 141
> ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/xsave.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/xsave.h
> index c9a6d68b8d62..e6c7986c95df 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/xsave.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/xsave.h
> @@ -67,6 +67,66 @@ extern int init_fpu(struct task_struct *child);
> _ASM_EXTABLE(1b, 3b) \
> : [err] "=r" (err)
>
> +#define XSTATE_OP(op, st, lmask, hmask, err) \
> + asm volatile("1:" op "\n\t" \
> + "2:\n\t" \
> + "xor %[err], %[err]\n" \
Are you not invariably clearing err here? If the instruction fault, we go
to label '3' which does 'err = -1; goto 2', which clears err. Same remark
for XSTATE_XSAVE()/XSTATE_RESTORE().
Probably missing something..
Also, tiny consistency nit, maybe use "\n\t" everywhere?
> + ".pushsection .fixup,\"ax\"\n\t" \
> + "3: movl $-1,%[err]\n\t" \
> + "jmp 2b\n\t" \
> + ".popsection\n\t" \
> + _ASM_EXTABLE(1b, 3b) \
> + : [err] "=r" (err) \
> + : "D" (st), "m" (*st), "a" (lmask), "d" (hmask) \
> + : "memory")
> +
I've tried compiling this on top of v4.0-rc5 and I get a compile error
because alt_end_marker isn't defined. Which other patches should I take to
test this?
Quentin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
