diff mbox series

[01/14] x86/xstate: Update stale assertions in fpu_x{rstor,save}()

Message ID 20241028154932.6797-2-alejandro.vallejo@cloud.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Headers show
Series x86: Address Space Isolation FPU preparations | expand

Commit Message

Alejandro Vallejo Oct. 28, 2024, 3:49 p.m. UTC
The asserts' intent was to establish whether the xsave instruction was
usable or not, which at the time was strictly given by the presence of
the xsave area. After edb48e76458b("x86/fpu: Combine fpu_ctxt and
xsave_area in arch_vcpu"), that area is always present a more relevant
assert is that the host supports XSAVE.

Fixes: edb48e76458b("x86/fpu: Combine fpu_ctxt and xsave_area in arch_vcpu")
Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vallejo@cloud.com>
---
I'd also be ok with removing the assertions altogether. They serve very
little purpose there after the merge of xsave and fpu_ctxt.
---
 xen/arch/x86/i387.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Andrew Cooper Oct. 28, 2024, 5:16 p.m. UTC | #1
On 28/10/2024 3:49 pm, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> The asserts' intent was to establish whether the xsave instruction was
> usable or not, which at the time was strictly given by the presence of
> the xsave area. After edb48e76458b("x86/fpu: Combine fpu_ctxt and
> xsave_area in arch_vcpu"), that area is always present a more relevant
> assert is that the host supports XSAVE.
>
> Fixes: edb48e76458b("x86/fpu: Combine fpu_ctxt and xsave_area in arch_vcpu")
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vallejo@cloud.com>
> ---
> I'd also be ok with removing the assertions altogether. They serve very
> little purpose there after the merge of xsave and fpu_ctxt.

I'd be fine with dropping them.  If they're violated, the use of
XSAVE/XRSTOR immediately afterwards will be fatal too.

~Andrew
Jan Beulich Oct. 29, 2024, 8:13 a.m. UTC | #2
On 28.10.2024 18:16, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 28/10/2024 3:49 pm, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>> The asserts' intent was to establish whether the xsave instruction was
>> usable or not, which at the time was strictly given by the presence of
>> the xsave area. After edb48e76458b("x86/fpu: Combine fpu_ctxt and
>> xsave_area in arch_vcpu"), that area is always present a more relevant
>> assert is that the host supports XSAVE.
>>
>> Fixes: edb48e76458b("x86/fpu: Combine fpu_ctxt and xsave_area in arch_vcpu")
>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vallejo@cloud.com>
>> ---
>> I'd also be ok with removing the assertions altogether. They serve very
>> little purpose there after the merge of xsave and fpu_ctxt.
> 
> I'd be fine with dropping them.

+1

Jan

>  If they're violated, the use of
> XSAVE/XRSTOR immediately afterwards will be fatal too.
> 
> ~Andrew
Alejandro Vallejo Oct. 29, 2024, 10:56 a.m. UTC | #3
On Tue Oct 29, 2024 at 8:13 AM GMT, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 28.10.2024 18:16, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > On 28/10/2024 3:49 pm, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> >> The asserts' intent was to establish whether the xsave instruction was
> >> usable or not, which at the time was strictly given by the presence of
> >> the xsave area. After edb48e76458b("x86/fpu: Combine fpu_ctxt and
> >> xsave_area in arch_vcpu"), that area is always present a more relevant
> >> assert is that the host supports XSAVE.
> >>
> >> Fixes: edb48e76458b("x86/fpu: Combine fpu_ctxt and xsave_area in arch_vcpu")
> >> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vallejo@cloud.com>
> >> ---
> >> I'd also be ok with removing the assertions altogether. They serve very
> >> little purpose there after the merge of xsave and fpu_ctxt.
> > 
> > I'd be fine with dropping them.
>
> +1
>
> Jan
>
> >  If they're violated, the use of
> > XSAVE/XRSTOR immediately afterwards will be fatal too.
> > 
> > ~Andrew

Ok then, I'll re-send this one as a removal.

Cheers,
Alejandro
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/i387.c b/xen/arch/x86/i387.c
index 83f9b2502bff..375a8274f632 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/i387.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/i387.c
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@  static inline void fpu_xrstor(struct vcpu *v, uint64_t mask)
 {
     bool ok;
 
-    ASSERT(v->arch.xsave_area);
+    ASSERT(cpu_has_xsave);
     /*
      * XCR0 normally represents what guest OS set. In case of Xen itself,
      * we set the accumulated feature mask before doing save/restore.
@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@  static inline void fpu_xsave(struct vcpu *v)
     uint64_t mask = vcpu_xsave_mask(v);
 
     ASSERT(mask);
-    ASSERT(v->arch.xsave_area);
+    ASSERT(cpu_has_xsave);
     /*
      * XCR0 normally represents what guest OS set. In case of Xen itself,
      * we set the accumulated feature mask before doing save/restore.