[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180205182957.xbeufjgyhd7pgdvq@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 19:29:57 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry: Clear extra registers beyond syscall
arguments for 64bit kernels
* Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> [...] Clearing R10 is mostly useless in the syscall path because we'll just
> unconditionally reload it in do_syscall_64().
AFAICS do_syscall_64() doesn't touch R10 at all. So how does it reload R10?
In fact do_syscall_64() as a C function does not touch R10, R11, R12, R13, R14,
R15 - it passes their values through.
What am I missing?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists