On 1 July 2014 15:26, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun, at 12:09:04PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> The current UEFI implementation for arm64 fails to preserve/restore the
>> contents
>> of the NEON register file, which may result in data corruption, especially
>> now
>> that those contents are
On Thu, 26 Jun, at 12:09:04PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> The current UEFI implementation for arm64 fails to preserve/restore the
> contents
> of the NEON register file, which may result in data corruption, especially now
> that those contents are lazily restored for user processes.
>
> This series
On 26 June 2014 15:58, Mark Salter wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-06-26 at 12:09 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> The current UEFI implementation for arm64 fails to preserve/restore the
>> contents
>> of the NEON register file,
>
> Does the current implementation actually use NEON registers?
> I know there
On Thu, 2014-06-26 at 12:09 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> The current UEFI implementation for arm64 fails to preserve/restore the
> contents
> of the NEON register file,
Does the current implementation actually use NEON registers?
I know there are some at least, which build with -mgeneral-regs-o
The current UEFI implementation for arm64 fails to preserve/restore the contents
of the NEON register file, which may result in data corruption, especially now
that those contents are lazily restored for user processes.
This series proposes to fix this by wrapping all runtime services calls, and
a
