> No. My objection is that there needs to be an explicit statement what > the semantics are. If the agreed-upon semantics are "undefined > behavior if GS != 0 and GSBASE doesn't match the descriptor", so be > it, but this needs to be a conscious decision and needs to be weighed > against the alternatives.
Documentation/x86/fsgs.txt already has this statement: >>> Another requirement is that the FS or GS selector has to be zero (is normally true unless changed explicitly). When it is non-zero the context switch assumes the bases were loaded through the LDT/GDT, and will reload that. <<< Is that sufficient? > > The actual implementation details are just details. They need to > match the intended semantics, of course. I believe my implementation matches the paragraph above. -Andi -- [email protected] -- Speaking for myself only.
