Skip to content

RFC x86/fpu: avoid "xstate_fault" in xsave_user/xrestore_user

Oleg Nesterov lkml stable 1 version In review

Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]

Versions newest first

  1. v1 RFC Latest2 patches 14 repliesIn review

Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet

#Subject and filesSizeRepliesApplied
1/2x86: introduce __user_insn() and __check_insn()arch/x86/include/asm/fpu-internal.h arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h+35 -320 replies
2/2x86/fpu: change xsave_user() and xrestore_user() to use __user_insn()arch/x86/include/asm/xsave.h+5 -142 replies

Reviews trailers per patch

No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v1 yet.

Read the v1 thread

Cover letter [PATCH RFC 0/2] x86/fpu: avoid "xstate_fault" in xsave_user/xrestore_user

Hello.

Another a bit off-topic change, but I'd like to finish the discussion with Quentin.

And almost cosmetic. But I added the RFC tag to make it clear that this needs a review from someone who understands gcc-asm better. In particular I am worried if that dummy "=m" (*buf) is actually correct.

And I agree with Quentin, user_insn/check_insn can be improved to allow clobbers, more flexible "output", etc. But imo they already can make this code look a bit better, and "xstate_fault" must die eventually.

Quentin, could you review? I can't find your last email about this change, and I can't recall if you agree or not.

Oleg.

Read the cover letter in its thread