Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-35520-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 15:15:27 +0000
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"stable@vger.kernel.org" <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/signal: Don't assume that TIF_SVE means we saved
 SVE state
Message-ID: <Za/YD/0a5Mn4IOAk@e133380.arm.com>
References: <20240119-arm64-sve-signal-regs-v1-1-b9fd61b0289a@kernel.org>
 <Zaqj0V82LD8wu6g+@e133380.arm.com>
 <Zaq1y9XpmzTsXDp8@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Zaq1y9XpmzTsXDp8@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>

On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 05:47:55PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 04:31:13PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 12:29:13PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > When we are in a syscall we will only save the FPSIMD subset even though
> > > the task still has access to the full register set, and on context switch
> 
> > (Pedantic nit: "A even if B" (= "A applies even in that subset of cases
> > where B"), instead of "A even though B" (= "A applies notwithstanding
> > that it is always the case that B") (?)  If the SVE trapping were
> > ripped out altogether, it would be a different and rather simpler
> > story...)
> 
> I really can't follow what you're trying to say here.  I'm not sure I
> where the bit about "always" comes from here?

The sentence seemed to me to be lacking some context, but I still
haven't fully familiarised myself with the changes to the code...

If it's what you intended to write and nobody else is confused, it's
probably good.


> > If the historical meanings of TIF_SVE have been split up (which seems a
> > good idea), does that resolve all of the "bare"
> > test_thread_flag(TIF_SVE) that were still there?
> 
> There's a couple more, but this is all of them in the signal handling
> code - I should have one or two more patches.  Most of the usage is
> actually checking the trapping and therefore fine.

I see, I guess this area needs keeping an eye on generally, but if there
are no more cases considered urgent then I guess that's fine for now
(modulo other patches in flight).

Cheers
---Dave