On 08/21/2011 09:26 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 09:11:54PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> lack of point - the *only* CPU where it would matter would be K6-2, IIRC,
>>> and (again, IIRC) it had some differences in SYSCALL semantics compared to
>>> K7 (which supports SYSENTER as well). Bugger if I remember what those
>>> differences might've been... Some flag not cleared?
>>
>> The most likely reason for a binary to execute a stray SYSCALL is
>> because they read it out of the vdso. Totally daft, but we certainly
>> see a lot of stupid things as evidenced by the JIT thread earlier this
>> month.
>
> Um... What, blindly, no matter what surrounds it in there? What will
> happen to the same eager JIT when it steps on SYSENTER?
The JIT will have had to manage SYSENTER already. It's not a change,
whereas SYSCALL would be. We could just try it, and see if anything
breaks, of course.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
uberSVN's rich system and user administration capabilities and model
configuration take the hassle out of deploying and managing Subversion and
the tools developers use with it. Learn more about uberSVN and get a free
download at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/wandisco-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
