[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44BCC5C1.5020305@vmware.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 04:28:01 -0700
From: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Ian Pratt <ian.pratt@...source.com>,
Christian Limpach <Christian.Limpach@...cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 15/33] move segment checks to subarch
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 00:00 -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
>
>> plain text document attachment (i386-segments)
>> We allow for the fact that the guest kernel may not run in ring 0.
>> This requires some abstraction in a few places when setting %cs or
>> checking privilege level (user vs kernel).
>>
>
>
>> - regs.xcs = __KERNEL_CS;
>> + regs.xcs = get_kernel_cs();
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> wouldn't this patch be simpler if __KERNEL_CS just became the macro that
> currently is get_kernel_cs() for the XEN case? then code like this
> doesn't need changing at all...
>
The tradeoff is that then you can't use __KERNEL_CS is assembler code,
and it is used in entry.S to detect NMI / debug trap workarounds - which
don't actually need to be paravirtualized, as it is easier to hide the
nasty cases which cause those side effects.
Zach
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists