[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150314160042.GA1338@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 17:00:42 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] x86: make 32-bit "emergency stack" better
documented
Hi!
> arch/x86/kernel/asm-offsets_32.c | 2 +-
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c | 3 ++-
> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
> index 48a61c1..9e65cf8 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
> @@ -276,9 +276,9 @@ struct tss_struct {
> unsigned long io_bitmap[IO_BITMAP_LONGS + 1];
>
> /*
> - * .. and then another 0x100 bytes for the emergency kernel stack:
> + * and then space for temporary SYSENTER stack:
> */
> - unsigned long stack[64];
> + unsigned long SYSENTER_stack[64];
Would it make sense to make it unsigned char ...stack[256], like the comment said?
Or is it supposed to be different size on 64bit, and comment was wrong?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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