Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention

Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calde...@linux.intel.com> writes: > On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 16:11 +0200, Alexandre Julliard wrote: >> Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calde...@linux.intel.com> writes: >> >> > On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 13:10 +0300, Stas Sergeev wrote: >&g

Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention

Ricardo Neri writes: > On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 16:11 +0200, Alexandre Julliard wrote: >> Ricardo Neri writes: >> >> > On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 13:10 +0300, Stas Sergeev wrote: >> >> 30.03.2017 08:14, Ricardo Neri пишет: >> >> In fact, smsw has an

Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention

d still cause a crash where there wasn't one before. However, I'm only aware of one application using this, and being able to catch and emulate sldt ourselves would actually give us a chance to fix this app in newer Wine versions, so I'm not opposed to having it segfault. In fact it would be nice to be able to make sidt/sgdt/etc. segfault too. I know a new syscall is a pain, but as far as Wine is concerned, being able to opt out from any emulation would be potentially useful. [1] https://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-bugs/2008-February/094470.html -- Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org

Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention

ne before. However, I'm only aware of one application using this, and being able to catch and emulate sldt ourselves would actually give us a chance to fix this app in newer Wine versions, so I'm not opposed to having it segfault. In fact it would be nice to be able to make sidt/sgdt/etc. segfault too. I know a new syscall is a pain, but as far as Wine is concerned, being able to opt out from any emulation would be potentially useful. [1] https://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-bugs/2008-February/094470.html -- Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org

Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86-64, modify_ldt: Ban 16-bit segments on 64-bit kernels

ped in a 32-bit > installer of some kind. Hard to know without seeing the program in > question. It could be a mix of both, there are various thunking mechanisms that allow 32-bit binaries to use 16-bit components. This was pretty common in the Win95 days. -- Alexandre Julliard julli...@w

Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86-64, modify_ldt: Ban 16-bit segments on 64-bit kernels

in question. It could be a mix of both, there are various thunking mechanisms that allow 32-bit binaries to use 16-bit components. This was pretty common in the Win95 days. -- Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel

Re: [PATCH] x86-64: espfix for 64-bit mode *PROTOTYPE*

"H. Peter Anvin" writes: > Does anyone have any idea if there is a real use case for non-16-bit > LDT segments used as the stack segment? Does Wine use anything like > that? Wine uses them for DPMI support, though that would only get used when vm86 mode is available. --

Re: [PATCH] x86-64: espfix for 64-bit mode *PROTOTYPE*

H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com writes: Does anyone have any idea if there is a real use case for non-16-bit LDT segments used as the stack segment? Does Wine use anything like that? Wine uses them for DPMI support, though that would only get used when vm86 mode is available. -- Alexandre

Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86-64, modify_ldt: Ban 16-bit segments on 64-bit kernels

get bug reports about specific 16-bit apps. It would be really nice if we could continue to support them on x86-64, particularly since Microsoft doesn't ;-) -- Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the bod

Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86-64, modify_ldt: Ban 16-bit segments on 64-bit kernels

be really nice if we could continue to support them on x86-64, particularly since Microsoft doesn't ;-) -- Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org -- 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