[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250724135840.GA19593@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 15:58:40 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Li,Rongqing" <lirongqing@...du.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/math64: handle #DE in mul_u64_u64_div_u64()
On 07/24, David Laight wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 10:25:48 +0200
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > --- a/arch/x86/mm/extable.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/extable.c
> > @@ -38,6 +38,9 @@ static bool ex_handler_default(const struct exception_table_entry *e,
> > if (e->data & EX_FLAG_CLEAR_DX)
> > regs->dx = 0;
> >
> > + if (e->data & EX_FLAG_XXX_AX)
> > + regs->ax = -1ul;
>
> That would need to set %eax to a 64bit ~0u;
> I don't think the above would sign extend the value.
Hmm... could you spell please?
pt_regs->ax is always 'unsigned long', regardless of bitness...
> Makes me think - always bad.
> I wonder how hard it would be to implement EX_FLAG_WARN_ONCE.
> Mostly it would need a writeable bitmap with one bit for each
> extable entry.
Would be nice... But who else will use this feature ? ;) I mean, it needs
some justification.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists