x86/fpu: Don't do __thread_fpu_end() if use_eager_fpu()

unlazy_fpu()->__thread_fpu_end() doesn't look right if use_eager_fpu().
Unconditional __thread_fpu_end() is only correct if we know that this
thread can't return to user-mode and use FPU.

Fortunately it has only 2 callers. fpu_copy() checks use_eager_fpu(),
and init_fpu(current) can be only called by the coredumping thread via
regset->get(). But it is exported to modules, and imo this should be
fixed anyway.

And if we check use_eager_fpu() we can use __save_fpu() like fpu_copy()
and save_init_fpu() do.

- It seems that even !use_eager_fpu() case doesn't need the unconditional
  __thread_fpu_end(), we only need it if __save_init_fpu() returns 0.

- It is still not clear to me if __save_init_fpu() can safely nest with
  another save + restore from __kernel_fpu_begin(). If not, we can use
  kernel_fpu_disable() to fix the race.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1423252925-14451-3-git-send-email-riel@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c b/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
index 4d0db9e..f3ced6f 100644 (file)
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
@@ -106,8 +106,12 @@ void unlazy_fpu(struct task_struct *tsk)
 {
        preempt_disable();
        if (__thread_has_fpu(tsk)) {
-               __save_init_fpu(tsk);
-               __thread_fpu_end(tsk);
+               if (use_eager_fpu()) {
+                       __save_fpu(tsk);
+               } else {
+                       __save_init_fpu(tsk);
+                       __thread_fpu_end(tsk);
+               }
        }
        preempt_enable();
 }