From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932429AbVIMHdD (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:33:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932431AbVIMHdD (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:33:03 -0400 Received: from sinclair.provo.novell.com ([137.65.81.169]:7869 "EHLO sinclair.provo.novell.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932429AbVIMHdC (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:33:02 -0400 Message-Id: <43269D12.76F0.0078.0@novell.com> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 7.0 Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 01:34:10 -0600 From: "Jan Beulich" To: "Stas Sergeev" Cc: , Subject: Re: [patch] x86: fix ESP corruption CPU bug (take 2) References: <431C20560200007800023E6F@emea1-mh.id2.novell.com> <432438F0.4090003@aknet.ru> <432546350200007800024DFF@emea1-mh.id2.novell.com> <4325B378.9080000@aknet.ru> In-Reply-To: <4325B378.9080000@aknet.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>Do you mean, eg, this? >>>http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0409.2/1533.html >> No, I don't. This talks about going through ring 1 intermediately, >> which isn't what I have in mind. >Well, like I said, 2 approaches do use the >kernel stack for the 16bit stack. One approach >uses ring-1 trampoline, the other one doesn't. >The posting I pointed to, was explicit about >the stack usage, but as for the ring-0 approach >while still using the kernel stack - here it is: >http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0410.0/1402.html > >Is this what you mean? This is pretty much all >about it, the third approach is in the kernel, >and there were no more, even under discussion. Yes, this comes close. Still, I'm more interested to understand why this approach was *not* chosen, which doesn't seem to be covered by any of the (only two) followups. Thanks again, Jan