| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4992E670.609@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:53:36 +0900 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: Use pt_regs pointer in do_device_not_available() Brian Gerst wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote: >> Brian Gerst wrote: >>> I don't quite follow what you are trying to say here. Are you saying >>> use the same calling convention for the exception handlers (anything >>> called from error_code) and system calls? >> Yeap. > > Doesn't make sense to me, two very fundamentally different things. I > supposed you could eliminate the error_code parameter, but that's alot > of work to remove just one instruction. I don't think they're fundamentally different. Well, I guess it all depends on how you look at it. Those are just functions called after kernel entry with register stack frame as argument. Some might have more fields others might not. I don't think having two conventions is too bad, so whether to do this or not is basically a cleanup decision. Eh... if you feel like doing it, please go ahead. If not, well, maybe somebody will do it someday (or not). :-) Thanks. -- tejun -- 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