From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickens <hugh@veritas.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/paravirt for v2.6.33
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:58:33 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0912091354190.3560@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B1FE9FD.3030407@goop.org>
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 12/08/09 13:34, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I do _not_ want to add any more task_pt_regs() crap, please.
> >
> > Why? It's wrong for at least vm86 mode (and from kernel system calls).
> >
>
> Would the stack frame version work in these cases?
It would "work" in the sense that at least it wouldn't corrupt the "outer"
stack frame - it would only change the inner one. For vm86 mode, that
would actually matter (iopl is meaningful), but as Peter also said, I
don't think we actually allow direct system calls from vm86 mode.
For me it's actually more of a conceptual complaint: I really think
'task_pt_regs()' is only reliable for ptrace and is simply _wrong_ in
other situations. On other architectures, you literally need to set up the
stack _differently_ on the signal handling path - which is what ptrace
does - than on regular system call paths.
So conceptually, the system call stack layout is simply _different_ than
the ptrace stack. And I'd hate to have x86 code that teaches people to do
things that really don't work in general.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-09 21:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-03 21:09 Ingo Molnar
2009-12-08 21:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-12-09 7:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-12-09 18:19 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-12-09 18:31 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-12-09 18:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-12-09 18:54 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-12-09 19:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-12-09 19:25 ` Brian Gerst
2009-12-09 19:35 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-12-09 19:32 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-12-09 20:05 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-12-09 18:49 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-12-09 18:18 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-12-09 21:58 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2009-12-09 18:29 H. Peter Anvin
2009-12-09 18:38 ` Linus Torvalds
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LFD.2.00.0912091354190.3560@localhost.localdomain \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®