On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote:
>
> 2. SYSRETQ. The only way that I know of to see the problem is SYSRETQ
> followed by a far jump or return. This is presumably *extremely*
> rare.
>
> What if we fixed #2 up in do_stack_segment. We should double-check
> the docs, but I think that this will only ever manifest as #SS(0) with
> regs->ss == __USER_DS and !user_mode_64bit(regs).
Hmm. It smells a bit "too clever" for me, and in particular, I think
you need a good test-case for this. But yeah, I guess that gets things
out of any possibly critical paths.
That said, I wouldn't even be sure about the SS(0). The rules about
when you get SS and when you get GP are odd.
Also, you need to check what happens when somebody does something like
movl $-1,%eax
ss ; movl (%eax),%eax
because I think that gets a #DB(0) too with the situation you expect
to be "unique", because the address wraps.. I dunno.
So care and testing needed. I think the scheduler approach is a *lot*
more obvious, quite frankly.
Linus
--
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/
