[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <556F450E.1020902@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 11:18:54 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] x86/entry: Create a home for the x86 entry code
in arch/x86/entry/
On 06/03/2015 11:04 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/03/2015 10:22 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> I'm convinced. If "entry" means entry into code provided by the
>> kernel as opposed to entry via hardware-provided entry mechanism, then
>> the vdso is indeed a pile of entries into the kernel.
>>
>
> No, it isn't. It is user space code provided by the kernel. It is a
> very different beast, and this is highly and unnecessarily confusing. I
> am thrilled we finally have managed to get the vdso code separated out,
> this just muddles the situation.
>
So let me clarify this: vdso code is really a kind of system calls, that
just happen to be executed in user space, thus *bypassing* kernel entry.
We don't want to put all the system call code (or even the x86-specific
ones) in entry/ as that would completely eliminate the point and we have
once again re-invented the kernel/ catch-all.
-hpa
--
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