Re: [patches] [PATCH 2.6.21 review I] [4/25] x86: kernel-mode faults pollute current->thead

2007-02-15 Thread Jeff Dike
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:01:20AM +, Jan Beulich wrote: > Ack. Great, thanks for your help. Jeff -- Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [patches] [PATCH 2.6.21 review I] [4/25] x86: kernel-mode faults pollute current->thead

2007-02-15 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 14.02.07 18:51 >>> >On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:52:54AM +, Jan Beulich wrote: >> Actually, after a second round of thinking I believe there's still more to do >> - your second patch missed fixing i386's do_trap() similarly to x86-64's >> and, vice versa,

Re: [patches] [PATCH 2.6.21 review I] [4/25] x86: kernel-mode faults pollute current-thead

2007-02-15 Thread Jan Beulich
Jeff Dike [EMAIL PROTECTED] 14.02.07 18:51 On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:52:54AM +, Jan Beulich wrote: Actually, after a second round of thinking I believe there's still more to do - your second patch missed fixing i386's do_trap() similarly to x86-64's and, vice versa, x86-64's

Re: [patches] [PATCH 2.6.21 review I] [4/25] x86: kernel-mode faults pollute current-thead

2007-02-15 Thread Jeff Dike
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:01:20AM +, Jan Beulich wrote: Ack. Great, thanks for your help. Jeff -- Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [patches] [PATCH 2.6.21 review I] [4/25] x86: kernel-mode faults pollute current->thead

2007-02-14 Thread Jeff Dike
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:52:54AM +, Jan Beulich wrote: > Actually, after a second round of thinking I believe there's still more to do > - your second patch missed fixing i386's do_trap() similarly to x86-64's > and, vice versa, x86-64's do_general_protection() similarly to i386's. Sigh,

Re: [patches] [PATCH 2.6.21 review I] [4/25] x86: kernel-mode faults pollute current-thead

2007-02-14 Thread Jeff Dike
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:52:54AM +, Jan Beulich wrote: Actually, after a second round of thinking I believe there's still more to do - your second patch missed fixing i386's do_trap() similarly to x86-64's and, vice versa, x86-64's do_general_protection() similarly to i386's. Sigh,

Re: [patches] [PATCH 2.6.21 review I] [4/25] x86: kernel-mode faults pollute current->thead

2007-02-13 Thread Andi Kleen
On Tuesday 13 February 2007 08:52, Jan Beulich wrote: > >Yup. How does this patch look to you? We set error_code and trap_no > >for userspace faults and kernel faults which call die(). We don't set > >them for kernelspace faults which are fixed up. > > Actually, after a second round of

Re: [patches] [PATCH 2.6.21 review I] [4/25] x86: kernel-mode faults pollute current-thead

2007-02-13 Thread Andi Kleen
On Tuesday 13 February 2007 08:52, Jan Beulich wrote: Yup. How does this patch look to you? We set error_code and trap_no for userspace faults and kernel faults which call die(). We don't set them for kernelspace faults which are fixed up. Actually, after a second round of thinking I

Re: [patches] [PATCH 2.6.21 review I] [4/25] x86: kernel-mode faults pollute current->thead

2007-02-12 Thread Jan Beulich
>Yup. How does this patch look to you? We set error_code and trap_no >for userspace faults and kernel faults which call die(). We don't set >them for kernelspace faults which are fixed up. Actually, after a second round of thinking I believe there's still more to do - your second patch missed

Re: [patches] [PATCH 2.6.21 review I] [4/25] x86: kernel-mode faults pollute current->thead

2007-02-12 Thread Jan Beulich
>Yup. How does this patch look to you? We set error_code and trap_no >for userspace faults and kernel faults which call die(). We don't set >them for kernelspace faults which are fixed up. That seems a reasonable approach. Thanks, Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: [patches] [PATCH 2.6.21 review I] [4/25] x86: kernel-mode faults pollute current->thead

2007-02-12 Thread Jeff Dike
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 09:32:10AM +, Jan Beulich wrote: > This breaks consumers of notify_die() relying on the proper trap number being > passed, as the call to notify_die() from die() currently reads > current->thread.trap_no. Rats, good point. > Also, you seem to leave other places where

Re: [patches] [PATCH 2.6.21 review I] [4/25] x86: kernel-mode faults pollute current->thead

2007-02-12 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10.02.07 12:50 >>> > >From: Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Kernel-mode traps on x86_64 can pollute the trap information for a previous >userspace trap for which the signal has not yet been delivered to the >process. > >do_trap and do_general_protection set

Re: [patches] [PATCH 2.6.21 review I] [4/25] x86: kernel-mode faults pollute current-thead

2007-02-12 Thread Jan Beulich
Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10.02.07 12:50 From: Jeff Dike [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kernel-mode traps on x86_64 can pollute the trap information for a previous userspace trap for which the signal has not yet been delivered to the process. do_trap and do_general_protection set task-thread.error_code

Re: [patches] [PATCH 2.6.21 review I] [4/25] x86: kernel-mode faults pollute current-thead

2007-02-12 Thread Jeff Dike
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 09:32:10AM +, Jan Beulich wrote: This breaks consumers of notify_die() relying on the proper trap number being passed, as the call to notify_die() from die() currently reads current-thread.trap_no. Rats, good point. Also, you seem to leave other places where

Re: [patches] [PATCH 2.6.21 review I] [4/25] x86: kernel-mode faults pollute current-thead

2007-02-12 Thread Jan Beulich
Yup. How does this patch look to you? We set error_code and trap_no for userspace faults and kernel faults which call die(). We don't set them for kernelspace faults which are fixed up. That seems a reasonable approach. Thanks, Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe

Re: [patches] [PATCH 2.6.21 review I] [4/25] x86: kernel-mode faults pollute current-thead

2007-02-12 Thread Jan Beulich
Yup. How does this patch look to you? We set error_code and trap_no for userspace faults and kernel faults which call die(). We don't set them for kernelspace faults which are fixed up. Actually, after a second round of thinking I believe there's still more to do - your second patch missed