Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> > From: Philip Guenther <guenther@gmail.com>
> > Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 11:37:03 -0700
> > 
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 5:32 AM Christian Ludwig <cludwig@genua.de> wrote:
> > > All kernel crypto code follows the scheme:
> > >
> > >         for (objects) {
> > >                 fpu_kernel_enter();
> > >                 ...
> > >                 fpu_kernel_exit();
> > >         }
> > >
> > > In every iteration, fpu_kernel_exit() resets the FPU state and
> > > fpu_kernel_enter() resets it, again. FPU resets are expensive on some
> > > platforms. Doing the operation twice per loop iteration is clearly not
> > > necessary.
> > >
> > > The FPU is always in one of two states when we reach fpu_kernel_enter().
> > > It either holds user state when CPUPF_USERXSTATE is set or it is in
> > > reset state already. The context switching code and signal code follow
> > > this assumption, too. So we can simply drop resetting the FPU in
> > > fpu_kernel_enter() when it does not hold user state.
> > 
> > Hmm, yes, all the places that clear CPUF_USERXSTATE reset the state.
> > 
> > Does fpu_kernel_enter() get used from interrupt context?  Do we have
> > to worry about an interrupt occurring between the clearing of the flag
> > and the resetting of the state?
> 
> I'm pretty sure the intention was that you can onlu use
> fpu_kernel_enter() from process context.  But I don't think we
> documented this anywhere and we don't enforce this.  Should we stick
> an assertwaitok() in there?

My point is has this covered pu some bugs.  Do we want to turn this into
an assert for a little while, then delete the assert when confidence.
The failure more is pretty drastic and undebuggable.  OTOH, we are pretty
bad about removing unneccessary assert later on.