linux-kernel - Re: [RFC Patch 6/9] Use virtual debug registers in process/thread handling code

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: <20081204010559.AAB5DFC053@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date:	Wed,  3 Dec 2008 17:05:59 -0800 (PST)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <mingo@...e.hu>,
	<jason.wessel@...driver.com>, <avi@...ranet.com>,
	<richardj_moore@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 6/9] Use virtual debug registers in process/thread
 handling code

> > Hmm.  The 64-bit version of __switch_to does the current change much
> > earlier, before __switch_to_xtra and math_state_restore.  I wonder if the
> > 32-bit version could change to match.  I can't see what in __switch_to_xtra
> > would care either way, though I may be overlooking something.  Ingo?
> 
> Would it be better to move __switch_to_xtra down below the change to 
> current, rather than moving the change to current up above 
> __switch_to_xtra?

I can't see that anything else in __switch_to_xtra cares either way.


Thanks,
Roland

--
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/