On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 01:03:14AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 04:27:51PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > So I think the "let's fix the vdso case for sysenter" + "let's remove > > the 32-bit syscall vdso" is the right solution. If somebody has > > hardcoded syscall instructions, or generates them dynamically with > > some JIT, that's their problem. We'll continue to support it as well > > as we ever have (read: "almost nobody will ever notice"). > > Umm... Maybe, but I really wonder if it would be better to do this: > * check if %ecx is the right one for vdso32 entry. If it isn't, > act as we act now (and possibly warn). If it is, increment it by 4. > * slap 0x90, 0x90, 0xcd, 0x80 right after that syscall insn - > i.e. nop/nop/int 0x80. Followed by what we currently do there. > > Those who do syscall insn in 32bit mode outside of vdso will get > what they currently get. __kernel_vsyscall() will keep working and do > that without restart problems. And the price is comparison + branch not > taken + addition for that path...
s/whine/set your "don't restart that one" flag/, even... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get a FREE DOWNLOAD! and learn more about uberSVN rich system, user administration capabilities and model configuration. Take the hassle out of deploying and managing Subversion and the tools developers use with it. http://p.sf.net/sfu/wandisco-d2d-2 _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
