[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110823000314.GW2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 01:03:14 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [uml-devel] SYSCALL, ptrace and syscall restart breakages (Re:
[RFC] weird crap with vdso on uml/i386)
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 04:27:51PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I think the "let's fix the vdso case for sysenter" + "let's remove
> the 32-bit syscall vdso" is the right solution. If somebody has
> hardcoded syscall instructions, or generates them dynamically with
> some JIT, that's their problem. We'll continue to support it as well
> as we ever have (read: "almost nobody will ever notice").
Umm... Maybe, but I really wonder if it would be better to do this:
* check if %ecx is the right one for vdso32 entry. If it isn't,
act as we act now (and possibly warn). If it is, increment it by 4.
* slap 0x90, 0x90, 0xcd, 0x80 right after that syscall insn -
i.e. nop/nop/int 0x80. Followed by what we currently do there.
Those who do syscall insn in 32bit mode outside of vdso will get
what they currently get. __kernel_vsyscall() will keep working and do
that without restart problems. And the price is comparison + branch not
taken + addition for that path...
--
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