From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752693AbcKQVcC (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:32:02 -0500
Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:13840 "EHLO mga03.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751986AbcKQVb7 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:31:59 -0500
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,655,1473145200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="902656958"
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/fpu: Fix invalid FPU ptrace state after execve
To: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
References: <1479315396-2131-1-git-send-email-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <97ba2918-dbc8-82bf-c017-9837b731f0f1@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:31:57 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1479315396-2131-1-git-send-email-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 11/16/2016 08:56 AM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> Robert O'Callahan reported that after an execve PTRACE_GETREGSET
> NT_X86_XSTATE continues to return the pre-exec register values
> until the exec'ed task modifies FPU state.  The test code is at
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1164286.
> 
> What is happening is when eagerfpu is enabled, fpu__clear() did
> not properly clear fpstate.  Fix it by doing just that.

Functionally, I think the patch is fine.  just a few
comment/documentation nits.

I think fpu__clear()'s comments are a bit out of date.  Could we make it
clear that it is invalidating both fpregs *and* fpstate?

I also think the

	/* FPU state will be reallocated lazily at the first use. */"

comment was fairly valuable.  Could we find some way to keep it?

The new comment:

> +	/*
> +	 * When eagerfpu is used, make sure fpstate is cleared and initialized.
> +	 */

also kinda implies that the if() block is only messing with fpstate.
Could we make that more clear?  Maybe by commenting the individual lines
inside the if():

> +	if (use_eager_fpu()) {
> +		fpu__activate_curr(fpu);
> +		user_fpu_begin();

instead of having it above?  Maybe something like:

	if (use_eager_fpu()) {
		/* activate and load init fpstate into 'fpu' */
		fpu__activate_curr(fpu);
		/* re-activate fpregs: */
		user_fpu_begin();
		/* take new init fpstate and place in fpregs: */
 		copy_init_fpstate_to_fpregs();
 	}