Re: linux-next: add utrace tree
On 02/07/2010 10:54 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: No, it has nothing to do with ring. It has to do with modifying code that another CPU could be executing at the same time, and with modifying code on the same processor through another virtual alias (they are different issues.) The same issues apply regardless of the CPL of the processor. ...but these are always 'there could be cpu bugs around' issues, right? Like amd k6. AFAICT x86 always supported self-modifying code without any extra barriers needed... *Self*-modifying code, yes. *Cross*-modifying code, no. -hpa
Re: linux-next: add utrace tree
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 07:54:25 +0100 Pavel Machek pa...@ucw.cz wrote: No, it has nothing to do with ring. It has to do with modifying code that another CPU could be executing at the same time, and with modifying code on the same processor through another virtual alias (they are different issues.) The same issues apply regardless of the CPL of the processor. ...but these are always 'there could be cpu bugs around' issues, right? Like amd k6. AFAICT x86 always supported self-modifying code without any extra barriers needed... self modifying code yes, cross modifying code no. -- Arjan van de VenIntel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org
Re: linux-next: add utrace tree
On 01/27/2010 01:05 PM, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote: We don't need to write one. I don't know how easy it is to make the kvm emulator less kvm-centric (vcpus, kvm_context, etc). Avi? It's a lot of mindless work but not too difficult; replacing hardcoded accessors with function pointers. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
