On Sun, 21 May 2006 16:06:43 +0800 David Xu <davidxu_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > On Saturday 20 May 2006 06:26, Rostislav Krasny wrote: > > Ok, there is the patch. Attached to this email. I tested it on my i386 > > 6.1-STABLE with GENERIC and with custom MYKERNEL. MYKERNEL doesn't have > > "options CPU_FXSAVE_LEAK" and it also attached to this email. I changed > > FXSAVE_LEAK to CPU_FXSAVE_LEAK for consistency with other CPU_* options. > > I don't have any amd64 machine, so I didn't test this patch on that > > architecture. Could somebody with amd64 test it? > > > > By the way, following command could be used to check how kernel has > > been compiled, regarding the CPU_FXSAVE_LEAK option: > > > > objdump -x /boot/kernel/kernel | grep fpu_clean_state > > The patch looks fine to me, but can it be CPU_FXSAVE_NOLEAK ? > so only people know the problem will turn it on. I've changed the patch. But instead of CPU_FXSAVE_NOLEAK I use CPU_FXSAVE_NO_LEAK, for consistency with options like CPU_CYRIX_NO_LOCK. The new patch is safer for STABLE users with custom kernels because even previously customized kernels should continue to use fpu_clean_state() after rebuilding. A new version of the patch is attached to this email. If that patch is going to be commited, a few words about it should probably be written in the src/UPDATING for those who use Intel or VIA processors.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:56 UTC