[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200811191023.16358.goretux@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:23:16 +0100
From: Eric Lacombe <goretux@...il.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [x86] do_arch_prctl - bug?
Le mercredi 19 novembre 2008 02:07:23 Jeremy Fitzhardinge, vous avez écrit :
> Eric Lacombe wrote:
> > I look at the Intel docs (vol. 3A) again, and see that in 64 bits mode
> > the hidden field gs.base are physically mapped to the MSR, so it seems
> > that in order to load gs.base we don't need to load gs (like in 32 bits
> > mode), but rather we only need to load the MSR.
> >
> > So I don't understand the purpose of load_gs_index in that context :
> >
> > if (doit) {
> > load_gs_index(0);
> > ret = checking_wrmsrl(MSR_KERNEL_GS_BASE, addr);
> > }
> >
> > Why don't we only load the MSR ?
> > What is the purpose of calling load_gs_index with 0 as parameter ?
>
> Because %gs of 0 means "base too large, go to MSR". If you have a
> 32-bit base, then loading it into the gdt and loading %gs with the right
> selector is faster. wrmsr/rdmsr are slow instructions.
Ok, thanks, so I suppose now that only doing :
asm volatile("movl %0,%%gs" :: "r" (0));
could corrupt the address of the PDA that resides actually in the MSR_GS_BASE.
And that's why load_gs_index is used as it contains "swapgs" before and after
the "mov to gs".
Is that correct?
Regards,
Eric
--
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