[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVVii5+d1xDiFX03wdS1XhxmezemhHTG7FArF50uVAJRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 17:07:37 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>
Cc: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/10] x86: Convert mmu context ia32_compat into a
proper flags field
On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 8:26 PM Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
<krisman@...labora.com> wrote:
>
> The ia32_compat attribute is a weird thing. It mirrors TIF_IA32 and
> TIF_X32 and is used only in two very unrelated places: (1) to decide if
> the vsyscall page is accessible (2) for uprobes to find whether the
> patched instruction is 32 or 64 bit. In preparation to remove the TI
> flags, we want new values for ia32_compat, but given its odd semantics,
> I'd rather make it a real flags field that configures these specific
> behaviours. So, set_personality_x64 can ask for the vsyscall page,
> which is not available in x32/ia32 and set_personality_ia32 can
> configure the uprobe code as needed.
>
> uprobe cannot rely on other methods like user_64bit_mode() to decide how
> to patch, so it needs some specific flag like this.
Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski<luto@...nel.org>
There are still issues with vsyscall control, but they were
pre-existing and I'll try to get them fixed up.
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists