On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 09:49:08AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On 5 June 2014 08:18, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:.
> >
> > How are you going to detect when to save/restore state? Do it
> > unconditionally would probably be a no-no. Even with all that optimized
> > XSAVE* fun.
>
> (I'm not talking about the crypto async code because I'm not familiar with it)
>
> For the EFI pstore case we'd only be using this newly allocated
> context space if we can't do the usual FPU xsave dance. e.g. we'd be
> adding a new feature specifically for the !irq_fpu_usable() case. Only
> then would we do an unconditional save. It would be useful to get some
> numbers for this but I don't think it would be too bad, especially
> given that it's in a fatal crash handler state anyway.
>
> I don't think it's worth going to the trouble solely for the EFI
> pstore code, but if it can also be used for the crypto code it might
> be worth a look.
Right, if we do this only for special, slowpath cases, then we're
probably fine with unconditional. It would be simpler too.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|