[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <73c1f2160902110631j68e58202h3e49288cfe613d66@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:31:02 -0500
From: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: Pass in pt_regs pointer for syscalls that need
it
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hello, Brian.
>
> Brian Gerst wrote:
>> Some syscalls need to access the pt_regs structure, either to copy
>> user register state or to modifiy it. This patch adds stubs to load
>> the address of the pt_regs struct into the %eax register, and changes
>> the syscalls to regparm(1) to receive the pt_regs pointer as the
>> first argument.
>
> Heh... neat. Just one question.
>
>> -asmlinkage long sys_iopl(unsigned long regsp)
>> +ptregscall long sys_iopl(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int level)
>> {
>> - struct pt_regs *regs = (struct pt_regs *)®sp;
>> - unsigned int level = regs->bx;
>
> Here and at other places where the function takes more than one
> arguments, wouldn't it be better to just take *regs and use other
> parameters from regs? That way we won't have to worry about gcc
> corrupting register frame at all and I think it's cleaner that way.
Expanding the parameters is good documentation. If there is a risk of
tail-call optimization causing the register corruption, then
asmlinkage_protect() should be used. The problem isn't limited to
just the syscalls that take pt_regs. It's just getting the args out
of the pt_regs struct was an easy hack to get around it. I checked
the disassembly of these functions and didn't see this happen on gcc
4.3.0.
--
Brian Gerst
--
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