On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 09:26:38AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 06:03:36PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> > Maybe I should rename cpu_tss to cpu_tss_rw in that patch.
> >>
> >> For clarity
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 09:26:38AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 06:03:36PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> > Maybe I should rename cpu_tss to cpu_tss_rw in that patch.
> >>
> >> For clarity that would be
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 06:03:36PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > Maybe I should rename cpu_tss to cpu_tss_rw in that patch.
>>
>> For clarity that would be nice.
>
> + a comment stating the alias mapping. It took tglx
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 06:03:36PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > Maybe I should rename cpu_tss to cpu_tss_rw in that patch.
>>
>> For clarity that would be nice.
>
> + a comment stating the alias mapping. It took tglx and me a while
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 06:03:36PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Maybe I should rename cpu_tss to cpu_tss_rw in that patch.
>
> For clarity that would be nice.
+ a comment stating the alias mapping. It took tglx and me a while on
IRC to figure it out. :-)
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 06:03:36PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Maybe I should rename cpu_tss to cpu_tss_rw in that patch.
>
> For clarity that would be nice.
+ a comment stating the alias mapping. It took tglx and me a while on
IRC to figure it out. :-)
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 25 Nov 2017, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >>> -
> >>> +wrmsr(MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_ESP, (unsigned long)(cpu_SYSENTER_stack(cpu)
> >>> + 1), 0);
> >>>
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 25 Nov 2017, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >>> -
> >>> +wrmsr(MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_ESP, (unsigned long)(cpu_SYSENTER_stack(cpu)
> >>> + 1), 0);
> >>>wrmsr(MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_EIP,
> On Nov 25, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> -
>>> +wrmsr(MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_ESP, (unsigned long)(cpu_SYSENTER_stack(cpu) +
>>> 1), 0);
>>>wrmsr(MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_EIP, (unsigned long)entry_SYSENTER_32, 0);
> On Nov 25, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> -
>>> +wrmsr(MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_ESP, (unsigned long)(cpu_SYSENTER_stack(cpu) +
>>> 1), 0);
>>>wrmsr(MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_EIP, (unsigned long)entry_SYSENTER_32, 0);
>>
>> Right, so we
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > -
> > + wrmsr(MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_ESP, (unsigned long)(cpu_SYSENTER_stack(cpu) +
> > 1), 0);
> > wrmsr(MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_EIP, (unsigned long)entry_SYSENTER_32, 0);
>
> Right, so we have now two TSS thingies, AFAICT:
>
> tss =
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > -
> > + wrmsr(MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_ESP, (unsigned long)(cpu_SYSENTER_stack(cpu) +
> > 1), 0);
> > wrmsr(MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_EIP, (unsigned long)entry_SYSENTER_32, 0);
>
> Right, so we have now two TSS thingies, AFAICT:
>
> tss =
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 06:23:48PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> From: Andy Lutomirski
>
> The existing code was a mess, mainly because C arrays are nasty.
> Turn SYSENTER_stack into a struct, add a helper to find it, and do
> all the obvious cleanups this enables.
>
>
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 06:23:48PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> From: Andy Lutomirski
>
> The existing code was a mess, mainly because C arrays are nasty.
> Turn SYSENTER_stack into a struct, add a helper to find it, and do
> all the obvious cleanups this enables.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy
From: Andy Lutomirski
The existing code was a mess, mainly because C arrays are nasty.
Turn SYSENTER_stack into a struct, add a helper to find it, and do
all the obvious cleanups this enables.
Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
From: Andy Lutomirski
The existing code was a mess, mainly because C arrays are nasty.
Turn SYSENTER_stack into a struct, add a helper to find it, and do
all the obvious cleanups this enables.
Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Borislav Petkov
Cc: Brian Gerst
On Fri, 24 Nov 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> From: Andy Lutomirski
>
> The existing code was a mess, mainly because C arrays are nasty.
> Turn SYSENTER_stack into a struct, add a helper to find it, and do
> all the obvious cleanups this enables.
Nice.
> Signed-off-by: Andy
On Fri, 24 Nov 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> From: Andy Lutomirski
>
> The existing code was a mess, mainly because C arrays are nasty.
> Turn SYSENTER_stack into a struct, add a helper to find it, and do
> all the obvious cleanups this enables.
Nice.
> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski
From: Andy Lutomirski
The existing code was a mess, mainly because C arrays are nasty.
Turn SYSENTER_stack into a struct, add a helper to find it, and do
all the obvious cleanups this enables.
Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski
Cc: Borislav Petkov
From: Andy Lutomirski
The existing code was a mess, mainly because C arrays are nasty.
Turn SYSENTER_stack into a struct, add a helper to find it, and do
all the obvious cleanups this enables.
Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski
Cc: Borislav Petkov
Cc: Borislav Petkov
Cc: Brian Gerst
Cc: Dave
20 matches
Mail list logo