[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 11:51:43 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirsky <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bpetkov@...e.de>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <eduval@...zon.com>,
"Liguori, Anthony" <aliguori@...zon.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 13/16] x86/ldt: Introduce LDT write fault handler
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> That has nothing to do with the user installed LDT. The kernel does not use
> and rely on LDT at all.
Sure it does. We end up loading the selector for %gs and %fs, and
those selectors end up being connected with whatever user-mode has set
up for them.
We then set the FS/GS base pointer to a kernel-specific value, but
that is _separately_ from the actual accessed bit that is in the
selector.
So the kernel doesn't care, but the kernel definitely uses them.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists