[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YjmD9ks5OAiZkjoL@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 09:08:22 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
rostedt@...dmis.org, ast@...nel.org, hjl.tools@...il.com,
rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, rppt@...nel.org,
linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org, Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the tip tree
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 02:31:36PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > Also, I think both should fix regs->ss.
>
> I'm not sure this part. Since the return trampoline should run in the same
> context of the called function, isn't ss same there too?
It creates pt_regs on the stack, so the trampolines do:
push $arch_rethook_trampoline
push %rsp
pushf
sub $24, %rsp /* cs, ip, orig_ax */
push %rdi
...
push %r15
That means that if anybody looks at regs->ss, it'll find
$arch_rethook_trampoline, which isn't a valid segment descriptor, or am
I just really bad at counting today?
I'm thinking you want a copy of __KERNEL_DS in that stack slot, not a
function pointer.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists