[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVi3Np9_pXWbMfFJO4Qt+M3yio4gMgz1H6q2hHQ5zpZuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:04:38 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86/entry/64, entry: Set up a valid sysenter stack
and prepare for 32-bit merge
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:31:40 -0700
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>> Oddly, 64-bit kernels already allocate a percpu sysenter stack, but
>> they don't enable it. Enable the stack and tweak the rest of the
>> sysenter setup code to be similar to the 32-bit version.
>
> I'm curious. Did you do any investigation into the 64bit code to why it
> wasn't set? Do you know if that was just overlooked with some of the
> merging between i386 and x86_64 systems?
>
> I'm not asking you to do it if you have not, but if you have, I think
> it would be more comforting to know that it was just overlooked than
> there being some other subtle reason.
I think it's just that it was never necessary. #DB has always used
IST on x86_64 (IIRC it was like that in the very first commit), so the
sysenter stack was never actually referenced.
--Andy
--
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