[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1483493407.106950.105.camel@ranerica-desktop>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 17:30:07 -0800
From: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, linux-msdos@...r.kernel.org,
wine-devel@...ehq.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Chen Yucong <slaoub@...il.com>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
"Ravi V . Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"Liang Z . Li" <liang.z.li@...el.com>,
Alexandre Julliard <julliard@...ehq.org>,
Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>
Subject: Re: [v2 5/7] x86: Add emulation code for UMIP instructions
On Fri, 2016-12-30 at 18:07 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Ricardo Neri
> <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-12-27 at 16:48 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > + if (nr_copied > 0)
> >> >> > + return -EFAULT;
> >> >>
> >> >> This should be the only EFAULT case.
> >> > Should this be EFAULT event if the caller cares only about successful
> >> > (return 0) vs failed (return non-0) emulation?
> >>
> >> In theory this particular error would be a page fault not a general
> >> protection fault (in the UMIP off case). If you were emulating it
> >> extra carefully, you could change the signal accordingly. But, as I
> >> said, I really doubt this matters.
> >
> > If simple enough and for the sake of accuracy, I could try to issue the
> > page fault. It seems to me that this entitles calling
> > force_sig_info_fault in this particular case as opposed to the
> > force_sig_info(SIGSEGV, SEND_SIG_PRIV, tsk) that do_general_protection
> > calls.
>
> Sure. You could even do it by sending the signal in the emulation
> code and returning true.
Will do.
Thanks!
Ricardo
>
> --Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists