[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B6FD9A2.8070008@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 01:30:10 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
CC: rostedt@...dmis.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tom Tromey <tromey@...hat.com>,
Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, utrace-devel@...hat.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
JimKeniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: add utrace tree
On 02/07/2010 10:54 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>
>> No, it has nothing to do with ring. It has to do with modifying code
>> that another CPU could be executing at the same time, and with modifying
>> code on the same processor through another virtual alias (they are
>> different issues.) The same issues apply regardless of the CPL of the
>> processor.
>
> ...but these are always 'there could be cpu bugs around' issues,
> right? Like amd k6. AFAICT x86 always supported self-modifying code
> without any extra barriers needed...
>
*Self*-modifying code, yes. *Cross*-modifying code, no.
-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