[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100208015349.36a12efe@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 01:53:49 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, 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>
Subject: Re: linux-next: add utrace tree
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 07:54:25 +0100
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> 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.
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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