Re: Kernel oops with 2.6.26, padlock and ipsec: probably problem with fpu state changes

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Wolfgang Walter <wolfgang.walter@...>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...>, Siddha, Suresh B <suresh.b.siddha@...>, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>, netdev@vger.kernel.org <netdev@...>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk <viro@...>, vegard.nossum@gmail.com <vegard.nossum@...>
Date: Saturday, August 9, 2008 - 2:12 pm

On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 08:57:32AM -0700, Wolfgang Walter wrote:

Wolf, kernel_fpu_begin() and kernel_fpu_end() only saves the user
state from getting corrupted with the kernel state. But it doesn't
help if kernel has nesting fpu usage.

In this padlock case with the patch, we may encounter a nested
kernel_fpu_begin() and end()
but this is ok, as the padlock is not actually touching fpu/sse registers.

Yes, we do have a problem when the interrupt handlers also use SSE
registers and if there is a nesting inside the kernel. Today we don't
have any such usage.


Today we don't have any nesting, for example, fast memcpy, if in interrupt
will use the slow version and doesnt use the optimized version.

thanks,
suresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Kernel oops with 2.6.26, padlock and ipsec: probably pro..., Suresh Siddha, (Sat Aug 9, 2:12 pm)