[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E51E325.2050502@zytor.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 22:03:33 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>, mingo@...hat.com,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SYSCALL, ptrace and syscall restart breakages (Re: [RFC] weird
crap with vdso on uml/i386)
On 08/21/2011 09:26 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 09:11:54PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> lack of point - the *only* CPU where it would matter would be K6-2, IIRC,
>>> and (again, IIRC) it had some differences in SYSCALL semantics compared to
>>> K7 (which supports SYSENTER as well). Bugger if I remember what those
>>> differences might've been... Some flag not cleared?
>>
>> The most likely reason for a binary to execute a stray SYSCALL is
>> because they read it out of the vdso. Totally daft, but we certainly
>> see a lot of stupid things as evidenced by the JIT thread earlier this
>> month.
>
> Um... What, blindly, no matter what surrounds it in there? What will
> happen to the same eager JIT when it steps on SYSENTER?
The JIT will have had to manage SYSENTER already. It's not a change,
whereas SYSCALL would be. We could just try it, and see if anything
breaks, of course.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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