On Mon, 7 May 2001, Brian Gerst wrote:
> Nigel Gamble wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 7 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Mon, 7 May 2001, Brian Gerst wrote:
> > > > This patch will still cause the user process to seg fault: The error
> > > > code on the stack will not match the address in %cr2.
> > >
> > > You've convinced me. Good thinking. Let's do the irq thing.
> >
> > I've actually seen user processes seg faulting because of this with the
> > fully preemptible kernel patch applied. The fix we used in that patch
> > was to use an interrupt gate for the fault handler, then to simply
> > restore the interrupt state:
>
> Keep in mind that regs->eflags could be from user space, and could have
> some undesirable flags set. That's why I did a test/sti instead of
Good point.
> reloading eflags. Plus my patch leaves interrupts disabled for the
> minimum time possible.
I'm not sure that it makes much difference, as interrupts are disabled
for such a short time anyway. I'd prefer to put the test/sti in
do_page_fault(), and reduce the complexity needed in assembler routines
as much as possible, for maintainability reasons.
Nigel Gamble [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mountain View, CA, USA. http://www.nrg.org/
MontaVista Software [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
