[PATCH v2 1/1] x86/elf: Add a new .note section containing Xfeatures information to x86 core files

[Balasubrmanian, Vignesh]

On 5/8/2024 6:32 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
>
>
> On Tue, May 07 2024 at 15:23, Vignesh Balasubramanian wrote:
>> +struct xfeat_component {
>> +     u32 xfeat_type;
>> +     u32 xfeat_sz;
>> +     u32 xfeat_off;
>> +     u32 xfeat_flags;
>> +} __packed;
> Why repeating xfeat_ for all member names?
>
>      u32       type;
>      u32       size;
>      u32       offset;
>      u32       flags;
>
> is sufficient and obvious, no?
>
>> +enum custom_feature {
>> +     FEATURE_XSAVE_FP = 0,
>> +     FEATURE_XSAVE_SSE = 1,
>> +     FEATURE_XSAVE_YMM = 2,
>> +     FEATURE_XSAVE_BNDREGS = 3,
>> +     FEATURE_XSAVE_BNDCSR = 4,
>> +     FEATURE_XSAVE_OPMASK = 5,
>> +     FEATURE_XSAVE_ZMM_Hi256 = 6,
>> +     FEATURE_XSAVE_Hi16_ZMM = 7,
>> +     FEATURE_XSAVE_PT = 8,
>> +     FEATURE_XSAVE_PKRU = 9,
>> +     FEATURE_XSAVE_PASID = 10,
>> +     FEATURE_XSAVE_CET_USER = 11,
>> +     FEATURE_XSAVE_CET_SHADOW_STACK = 12,
>> +     FEATURE_XSAVE_HDC = 13,
>> +     FEATURE_XSAVE_UINTR = 14,
>> +     FEATURE_XSAVE_LBR = 15,
>> +     FEATURE_XSAVE_HWP = 16,
>> +     FEATURE_XSAVE_XTILE_CFG = 17,
>> +     FEATURE_XSAVE_XTILE_DATA = 18,
>> +     FEATURE_MAX,
>> +     FEATURE_XSAVE_EXTENDED_START = FEATURE_XSAVE_YMM,
>> +     FEATURE_XSAVE_EXTENDED_END = FEATURE_XSAVE_XTILE_DATA,
>> +};
> Why can't this use the existing 'enum xfeature' which is providing
> exactly the same information already?
First version of patch was similar to what you mentioned here and other 
review comments to use existing kernel definitions.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240314112359.50713-1-vigbalas@amd.com/T/

As per the review comment 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240314162954.GAZfMmAnYQoRjRbRzc@fat_crate.local/ 
, modified the patch to be a independent of kernel internal definitions.
Though this enum and below function  "get_sub_leaf" are not useful now,  
it will be required when we extend for a new/different features.

Please let  us know your suggestions.

I will fix all other review comments in my next version.

>> +#ifdef CONFIG_COREDUMP
>> +static int get_sub_leaf(int custom_xfeat)
>> +{
>> +     switch (custom_xfeat) {
>> +     case FEATURE_XSAVE_YMM:                 return XFEATURE_YMM;
>> +     case FEATURE_XSAVE_BNDREGS:             return XFEATURE_BNDREGS;
>> +     case FEATURE_XSAVE_BNDCSR:              return XFEATURE_BNDCSR;
>> +     case FEATURE_XSAVE_OPMASK:              return XFEATURE_OPMASK;
>> +     case FEATURE_XSAVE_ZMM_Hi256:           return XFEATURE_ZMM_Hi256;
>> +     case FEATURE_XSAVE_Hi16_ZMM:            return XFEATURE_Hi16_ZMM;
>> +     case FEATURE_XSAVE_PT:                  return XFEATURE_PT_UNIMPLEMENTED_SO_FAR;
>> +     case FEATURE_XSAVE_PKRU:                return XFEATURE_PKRU;
>> +     case FEATURE_XSAVE_PASID:               return XFEATURE_PASID;
>> +     case FEATURE_XSAVE_CET_USER:            return XFEATURE_CET_USER;
>> +     case FEATURE_XSAVE_CET_SHADOW_STACK:    return XFEATURE_CET_KERNEL_UNUSED;
>> +     case FEATURE_XSAVE_HDC:                 return XFEATURE_RSRVD_COMP_13;
>> +     case FEATURE_XSAVE_UINTR:               return XFEATURE_RSRVD_COMP_14;
>> +     case FEATURE_XSAVE_LBR:                 return XFEATURE_LBR;
>> +     case FEATURE_XSAVE_HWP:                 return XFEATURE_RSRVD_COMP_16;
>> +     case FEATURE_XSAVE_XTILE_CFG:           return XFEATURE_XTILE_CFG;
>> +     case FEATURE_XSAVE_XTILE_DATA:          return XFEATURE_XTILE_DATA;
>> +     default:
>> +             pr_warn_ratelimited("Not a valid XSAVE Feature.");
>> +             return 0;
>> +     }
>> +}
> This function then maps the identical enums one to one. The only actual
> "functionality" is the default case and that's completely pointless.
thanks,
vigneshbalu.