mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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®