Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:39:41 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
cc:     "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "Metzger, Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@intel.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] x86/fsgsbase/64: Introduce FS/GS base helper
 functions
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrVzLT0AwUFxZGjuREaontqzJe0DEccNFwLTKdLcLxcARA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1806221735400.2402@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <1529536506-26237-1-git-send-email-chang.seok.bae@intel.com> <1529536506-26237-2-git-send-email-chang.seok.bae@intel.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1806221610500.2402@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <CALCETrVzLT0AwUFxZGjuREaontqzJe0DEccNFwLTKdLcLxcARA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 7:28 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > > +unsigned long read_task_fsbase(struct task_struct *task)
> > > +{
> > > +     unsigned long fsbase;
> > > +
> > > +     if (task == current) {
> > > +             fsbase = read_fsbase();
> > > +     } else {
> > > +             /*
> > > +              * XXX: This will not behave as expected if called
> > > +              * if fsindex != 0. This preserves an existing bug
> > > +              * that will be fixed.
> >
> > I'm late to this party, but let me ask the obvious question:
> >
> >     Why is the existing bug not fixed as the first patch in the series?
> 
> IIRC that was how I did it in the old version of this code.  I think
> it did it because it was less messy to fix the bug after cleaning up
> the code, but I could be remembering wrong.

Fair enough. Though the general rule is: Fix bugs first and then do
features, unless you really need the extra step to fix it proper.

Now in that case the real question is whether this is a bug or just a
slight incorrectness which has no practical impact. If it's the latter,
then introduce the new function which does the right thing first and make
the new fs/gs base functions use it without having a blurb about preserving
bugs.

Thanks,

	tglx