On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:03:22AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> ...
> The reader surely doesn't remember that this isn't guaranteed to be a
> swapgs instruction on native. Using:
>
> ALTERNATIVE "swapgs" "" X86_FEATURE_XENPV
>
> would be safer (it would get rid of the SWAPGS_UNSAFE_STACK mess) and
> much clearer. We could hide *that* behind a macro and no one would be
> confused. (Well, they'd be confused by the fact that Xen PV handles
> gsbase very differently from native, but that has nothing to do with
> the macro.)
>
> I think we could convert piecemeal, and I wonder if this new patch for
> 32-bit native on 4.4 (this is needed for 4.4, right?) would be a good
> starting point. Borislav, what do you think? Would you be okay with
> adding a Xen PV pseudofeature?
AFAICT, I'd prefer this becomes rather a jump label which gets enabled
on xen. Especially if a single pseudofeature might not be enough,
apprently...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
