[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E53DC2A.3020004@nod.at>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:58:18 +0200
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"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)
Am 23.08.2011 18:53, schrieb Al Viro:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 09:29:29AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> Oh yes.
>>
>> System call performance is *important*. And x86 is *important*.
>>
>> UML? In comparison, not that important.
>>
>> So quite frankly, if this is purely an UML issue (and unless we're
>> missing something else, that's what it looks like, despite all the
>> confusion we've had so far), then if we have a choice between "remove
>> syscall instruction" and "remove UML", then ...
>
> Agreed. Note, BTW, that UML has perfectly usable workaround for 99% of
> that - don't tell the binaries it has *any* vdso in such cases. And
> "remove UML" turns into "remove support under UML for 32bit binaries
> that go out of their way to do SYSCALL directly, which wouldn't work
> on native 32bit", which is really a no-brainer.
What about this hack/solution?
While booting UML can check whether the host's vDSO contains
a SYSCALL instruction.
If so, UML will not make the host's vDSO available to it's
processes...
Thanks,
//richard
--
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