[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrX-bcFcgUMUH=pFuB+NZ3wAHK5BxKUyexL4VDxPTWqjPg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:57:40 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Updated version of RD/WR FS/GS BASE patchkit
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>> No. My objection is that there needs to be an explicit statement what
>> the semantics are. If the agreed-upon semantics are "undefined
>> behavior if GS != 0 and GSBASE doesn't match the descriptor", so be
>> it, but this needs to be a conscious decision and needs to be weighed
>> against the alternatives.
>
> Documentation/x86/fsgs.txt already has this statement:
>
>>>>
> Another requirement is that the FS or GS selector has to be zero
> (is normally true unless changed explicitly). When it is non-zero
> the context switch assumes the bases were loaded through the LDT/GDT,
> and will reload that.
> <<<
>
> Is that sufficient?
>
Maybe. Are there better options? Could we, for example, actually try
to preserve the state if this happens? Would it be worth it?
>>
>> The actual implementation details are just details. They need to
>> match the intended semantics, of course.
>
> I believe my implementation matches the paragraph above.
>
> -Andi
>
> --
> ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
Powered by blists - more mailing lists