On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> ARCH_GET_FS and ARCH_GET_GS attempted to figure out the fsbase and
>> gsbase respectively from saved thread state. This was wrong: fsbase
>> and gsbase live in registers
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> ARCH_GET_FS and ARCH_GET_GS attempted to figure out the fsbase and
>> gsbase respectively from saved thread state. This was wrong: fsbase
>> and gsbase live in registers while a thread is running, not in
>>
2016-04-08 10:13 GMT+03:00 Ingo Molnar :
>
> * Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> ARCH_GET_FS and ARCH_GET_GS attempted to figure out the fsbase and
>> gsbase respectively from saved thread state. This was wrong: fsbase
>> and gsbase live in registers while a thread
2016-04-08 10:13 GMT+03:00 Ingo Molnar :
>
> * Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> ARCH_GET_FS and ARCH_GET_GS attempted to figure out the fsbase and
>> gsbase respectively from saved thread state. This was wrong: fsbase
>> and gsbase live in registers while a thread is running, not in
>> memory.
>
> So
* Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> ARCH_GET_FS and ARCH_GET_GS attempted to figure out the fsbase and
> gsbase respectively from saved thread state. This was wrong: fsbase
> and gsbase live in registers while a thread is running, not in
> memory.
So I'm wondering, the current code
* Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> ARCH_GET_FS and ARCH_GET_GS attempted to figure out the fsbase and
> gsbase respectively from saved thread state. This was wrong: fsbase
> and gsbase live in registers while a thread is running, not in
> memory.
So I'm wondering, the current code looks totally
6 matches
Mail list logo