linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 13/14] perf/x86: Rename and move get_segment

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250626111316.5a783695@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 11:13:16 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 bpf@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, Masami Hiramatsu
 <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
 Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri
 Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Thomas
 Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Indu
 Bhagat <indu.bhagat@...cle.com>, "Jose E. Marchesi" <jemarch@....org>, Beau
 Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com>, Jens Remus <jremus@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton
 <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 13/14] perf/x86: Rename and move get_segment_base()
 and make it global

On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 15:07:05 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> FWIW, I recently found we have a second 'copy' of all this in
> insn_get_seg_base() / get_desc().
> 
> Its all subtly different, but largely the same.

Should I just use that then?

Instead of:

		cs_base = segment_base_address(regs->cs);
		ss_base = segment_base_address(regs->ss);

Use:

		cs_base = insn_get_seg_base(regs, INAT_SEG_REG_CS);
		ss_base = insn_get_seg_base(regs, INAT_SEG_REG_SS);

As it is used in a few places in the x86 code already. Then I could get rid
of this patch.

-- Steve