[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48362B87.6010806@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 19:27:19 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
CC: Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
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
Suresh Siddha wrote:
>>>
>>> The kernel needs to accept one(*) of the formats it can produce, which
>>> is not necessarily what it last produced. It's not inconceivable that
>>> user-space will construct sigframes on the fly (to emulate setcontext),
>>> or that it will mangle sigframes (e.g. to map non-rt to rt before
>>> sigreturn).
>>>
>>> (*) The format is determined by which version of sys_sigreturn the
>>> user invokes.
>>>
>> No. You CANNOT restore from a frame that doesn't have the full state -
>> you don't have enough information to do so!
>
> What I was doing in the RFC is: restore the state what ever that was present and
> init the state that was not present in the stack frame.
Either way, I find it somewhat surprising that the user would invoke a
different sys_sigreturn especially if using a restorer function (which
gcc always does.)
I really think I need to understand your application better,
*especially* in the light of the fact you wouldn't at the moment know
how even get the size of the frame.
-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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists