[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <483196F8.8000108@firstfloor.org>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 17:04:24 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>
CC: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, roland@...hat.com, drepper@...hat.com,
Hongjiu.lu@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk, dan@...ian.org,
asit.k.mallick@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: xsave/xrstor support, ucontext_t extensions
> The de-facto ABI for signal delivery and sigreturn is unfortunately
> based on fairly fixed-layout structs on the stack (sigframes). The
> only flexibility there that I've found is the sigcontext's fpstate
> pointer which allows the fpstate to be located elsewhere.
One sure 100% compatible way would be to only change the signal layout once
the application used anything that needs XSAVE/XRSTOR. But implementing
that would be likely complicated and I'm not sure it's worth it.
I don't remember that much breakage when the FXSAVE support was
introduced on i386. That already changed these data structures.
> Another idea is that marking non-siginfo sigframes could be done
> by adding a sys_xsave_sigreturn() and letting those sigframes
> have a return address pointing to a vsyscall that invokes this
> new syscall.
That sounds easy enough. x86-64 right now doesn't use signal vsyscalls but
there is no principle reason it can't.
-Andi
--
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