linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: Use v8086_mode helper, trivial unification

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <478FF9F3.9030604@zytor.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:59:31 -0500
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Use v8086_mode helper, trivial unification

Harvey Harrison wrote:
> 
> Sorry, missed that detail in ptrace.h, I notice now.
> 
> Is there some better way this could be organized, would the following
> be an improvement, as opposed to two long ifdef sections?
> 
> Patch will follow if you think it's a good idea.

It is actually quite a bit easier to read.

> 
> static inline unsigned long stack_pointer(struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> 	return (unsigned long)regs;
> #else
> 	return regs->sp;
> #endif
> }

This one is kind of strange.  In particular, the 32-bit definition isn't 
exactly what one would expect.  It makes me concerned that it actually 
refers to two different kinds of stack pointers?

> /* still need a define here, as one is long and one is unsigned long.
>  * but this is another target for unification I guess. */
> #define regs_return_value(regs) ((regs)->ax)

Indeed...

	-hpa
--
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/