Le 04/07/2017 à 22:45, Gustavo Romero a écrit :
Currently tm_reclaim() can return with a corrupted vs0 (fp0) or vs32 (v0) due to the fact vs0 is used to save FPSCR and vs32 is used to save VSCR. Later, we recheckpoint trusting that the live state of FP and VEC are ok depending on the MSR.FP and MSR.VEC bits, i.e. if MSR.FP is enabled that means the FP registers checkpointed when we entered in TM are correct and after a treclaim. we can trust the FP live state. Similarly to VEC regs. However if tm_reclaim() does not return a sane state then tm_recheckpoint() will recheckpoint a corrupted state from live state back to the checkpoint area. That commit fixes the corruption by restoring vs0 and vs32 from the ckfp_state and ckvr_state after they are used to save FPSCR and VSCR, respectively. The effect of the issue described above is observed, for instance, once a VSX unavailable exception is caught in the middle of a transaction with MSR.FP = 1 or MSR.VEC = 1. If MSR.FP = 1, then after getting back to user space FP state is corrupted. If MSR.VEC = 1, then VEC state is corrupted. The issue does not occur if MSR.FP = 0 and MSR.VEC = 0 because ckfp_state and ckvr_state are both copied from fp_state and vr_state, respectively, and on recheckpointing both states will be restored from these thread structures and not from the live state. The issue does not occur also if MSR.FP = 1 and MSR.VEC = 1 because it implies MSR.VSX = 1 and in that case the VSX unavailable exception does not happen in the middle of the transactional block. Finally, that commit also fixes the MSR used to check if FP and VEC bits are enabled once we are in tm_reclaim_thread(). ckpt_regs.msr is valid only if giveup_all() is called *before* using ckpt_regs.msr for checks because check_if_tm_restore_required() in giveup_all() will copy regs->msr to ckpt_regs.msr and so ckpt_regs.msr reflects exactly the MSR that the thread had when it came off the processor. No regression was observed on powerpc/tm selftests after this fix. Signed-off-by: Gustavo Romero <grom...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <lei...@debian.org>
This patch is still flaged as "New" in patchwork (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/patch/1499201115-22967-1-git-send-email-grom...@linux.vnet.ibm.com/)
I don't know why but the discussion that happened on this patch don't appear in patchwork.
I see two commit touching the same area of code done in the following monthes the same year:
eb5c3f1c8647 ("powerpc: Always save/restore checkpointed regs during treclaim/trecheckpoint") 91381b9cb1c3 ("powerpc: Force reload for recheckpoint during tm {fp, vec, vsx} unavailable exception")
So I'll mark this patch as "changes requested". Please raise hand if I'm wrong.
Christophe
