[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110823162251.GC13138@aftab>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:22:51 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
To: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, 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 Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:11:43PM -0400, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> In any case, this seems insanely overcomplicated. I'd be less afraid
> of something like my approach (which, I think, makes all of the
> SYSCALL weirdness pretty much transparent to ptrace users) or of just
> removing SYSCALL entirely from 32-bit code.
I don't think that removing SYSCALL from 32-bit code just so that UML
trapped syscalls work is something we'd like since SYSCALL is much
cheaper than INT $0x80:
"As a result, SYSCALL and SYSRET can take fewer than one-fourth the
number of internal clock cycles to complete than the legacy CALL and RET
instructions."
http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/24593.pdf, p. 152.
I know, it is 32-bit syscall on 64-bit kernel which should be pretty
rare but still...
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
GM: Alberto Bozzo
Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen
HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551
--
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