On 1/17/23 6:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 12:30:16PM -0700, Jim Cromie wrote:
__jump_label_patch currently will "crash the box" if it finds a
jump_entry not as expected. ISTM this overly harsh; it doesn't
distinguish between "alternate/opposite" state, and truly
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 12:30:16PM -0700, Jim Cromie wrote:
> __jump_label_patch currently will "crash the box" if it finds a
> jump_entry not as expected. ISTM this overly harsh; it doesn't
> distinguish between "alternate/opposite" state, and truly
> "insane/corrupted".
>
> The "opposite" (but
__jump_label_patch currently will "crash the box" if it finds a
jump_entry not as expected. ISTM this overly harsh; it doesn't
distinguish between "alternate/opposite" state, and truly
"insane/corrupted".
The "opposite" (but well-formed) state is a milder mis-initialization
problem, and some
