[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809280823220.8118@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:24:44 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
cc: x86@...nel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] futex: Set USER_DS for the futex_detect_cmpxchg() test
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > I have a couple questions here:
> >
> > - Is this actually okay on all architectures? That is, are there
> > cases where we'll screw up if we fail a USER_DS access this early?
> > s390 stands out as the obvious special case (where USER_DS is not
> > than just a subset of KERNEL_DS), but s390 opts out.
> >
> > - Why doesn't x86 set HAVE_FUTEX_CMPXCHG? Or do we still support
> > some 32-bit configurations that don't have cmpxchg and don't know
> > about it at compile time?
>
> I'm not entirely sure. Have to dig into the details. I assume S390 just can
> set it though.
x86 as well. It's supported from 486 onwards and we ripped out 386 years ago.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists