[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121116040847.GA22671@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 04:08:47 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 30/31] ARC: switch to generic kernel_execve() and
sys_execve()
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 10:47:53AM +0100, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> +; When we land here, pt_regs have already been updated in-place correctly
> +; A pointer to them is also passed by kernel_execve, we just need to make sure
> +; that SP is set to point to them.
> +ARC_ENTRY ret_from_kernel_execve
> + ; Force SP to "normal" pt_regs just populated.
> + b.d ret_from_system_call
> + mov sp, r0
won't that splatter crap into regs->r0? IOW, why not branch to
ret_from_exception here?
> +ARC_EXIT ret_from_kernel_execve
Another thing: why not fold that branch to ret_from_exception into the end of
ret_from_kernel_thread() (instead of calling sys_exit()), select
GENERIC_KERNEL_EXECVE and lose __ARCH_WANT_KERNEL_EXECVE.
Actually, now that I look at your ret_from_kernel_thread... How the hell
will it cope with kernel_thread() payload trying to return? AFAICS, this
j.d [r1] will lose the return address, won't it? And while we are at it,
I would suggest passing callback and its argument via callee-saved registers -
makes for simpler life in ret_from_kernel_thread(), since switch_to() itself
will take care of loading those...
--
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