[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9E0BE1322F2F2246BD820DA9FC397ADE0180ED16@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 01:43:00 +0000
From: "Ren, Qiaowei" <qiaowei.ren@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mips@...ux-mips.org" <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v9 09/12] x86, mpx: decode MPX instruction to get bound
violation information
On 2014-10-24, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2014, Qiaowei Ren wrote:
>
>> This patch sets bound violation fields of siginfo struct in #BR
>> exception handler by decoding the user instruction and constructing
>> the faulting pointer.
>>
>> This patch does't use the generic decoder, and implements a limited
>> special-purpose decoder to decode MPX instructions, simply because
>> the generic decoder is very heavyweight not just in terms of
>> performance but in terms of interface -- because it has to.
>
> My question still stands why using the existing decoder is an issue.
> Performance is a complete non issue in case of a bounds violation and
> the interface argument is just silly, really.
>
As hpa said, we only need to decode several mpx instructions including BNDCL/BNDCU, and general decoder looks like a little heavy. Peter, what do you think about it?
Thanks,
Qiaowei
--
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