[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y9DuG5quQpfeVKJm@biznet-home.integral.gnuweeb.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 15:53:47 +0700
From: Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Xin Li <xin3.li@...el.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
x86 Mailing List <x86@...nel.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Kselftest Mailing List
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 1/2] selftests/x86: sysret_rip: Handle syscall in
a FRED system
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 12:39:26AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > + ret = check_regs_result(ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_R11],
> > + ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_RCX],
> > + ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_RBX]);
> > +
> > + assert(ret != REGS_ERROR);
> > +
>
> This instance, too, needs to be checked against regs_ok_result. It would
> make most sense to move that handling, and the assert() into
> check_regs_result() or into a separate function around it.
OK. Sounds better.
> > /* Set IP and CX to match so that SYSRET can happen. */
> > ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_RIP] = rip;
> > ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_RCX] = rip;
>
> It would be interesting to have the syscall handler try both with and
> without this (so it would end up doing both IRET and SYSCALL on legacy.)
> Perhaps SIGUSR1 versus SIGUSR2...
We will have a new separate patch for that.
--
Ammar Faizi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists