Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752792AbcD2We6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:34:58 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:28377 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751339AbcD2We5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:34:57 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,553,1455004800"; d="scan'208";a="965688506" Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 15:30:50 -0700 From: Yu-cheng Yu To: Dave Hansen Cc: x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski , Borislav Petkov , Sai Praneeth Prakhya , "Ravi V. Shankar" , Fenghua Yu Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/10] x86/xsaves: Fix PTRACE frames for XSAVES Message-ID: <20160429223050.GA15714@test-lenovo> References: <46ff4951eef7e9ad30b25df401fa536a5bc9100b.1457038929.git.yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> <5723C33E.1020303@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5723C33E.1020303@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 947 Lines: 26 On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:25:34PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 03/04/2016 10:12 AM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote: > > + for (i = 0; i < XFEATURE_MAX; i++) { > > + /* > > + * Copy only in-use xstates. > > + */ > > + if (((header.xfeatures >> i) & 1) && xfeature_enabled(i)) { > > + void *src = get_xsave_addr_no_check(xsave, i); > > How could a bit in header.xfeatures get set if it is not set in > xfeature_enabled() aka xfeatures_mask aka XCR0? Do you mean, we should test xfeature_enabled(i) first, like, if (xfeature_enabled(i) && ((header.xfeatures >> i) & 1)) ? The result will be the same, like you said, if XCR0[i] is not set, hader.xfeatures[i] cannot be set. But if XCR0[i] is set, header.xfeatures[i] can be cleared. > > If a caller tries to pass a non-enabled xfeature in, we appear to just > silently drop it and return success. Is that really what we want to do > or do we want to error out? Let it fail. I will chage it.