* [cleanup] do_general_protection doesn't disable irq
@ 2004-07-30 2:53 Andrea Arcangeli
2004-07-30 4:22 ` Brian Gerst
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andrea Arcangeli @ 2004-07-30 2:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: linux-kernel
A trap gate shouldn't affect the irq status at all.
This should be a valid cleanup that removes a slightly confusing noop:
Index: linux-2.5/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/andrea/crypto/cvs/linux-2.5/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c,v
retrieving revision 1.77
diff -u -p -r1.77 traps.c
--- linux-2.5/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c 13 Jul 2004 18:02:33 -0000 1.77
+++ linux-2.5/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c 30 Jul 2004 02:44:23 -0000
@@ -431,9 +431,6 @@ DO_ERROR_INFO(17, SIGBUS, "alignment che
asmlinkage void do_general_protection(struct pt_regs * regs, long error_code)
{
- if (regs->eflags & X86_EFLAGS_IF)
- local_irq_enable();
-
if (regs->eflags & VM_MASK)
goto gp_in_vm86;
Thanks to Karsten for noticing a trap gate doesn't actually enable irq
by default either (offtopic issue with the above patch, but while
reading the 2.6 code I found the above bit which just confused me more
since it's a noop, either that or you meant to use set_intr_gate, not
set_trap_gate on the do_general_protection handler, but it seems not
needed to use a trap gate since a trap gate shouldn't enable irqs by
default). Please correct me if wrong.
thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [cleanup] do_general_protection doesn't disable irq
2004-07-30 2:53 [cleanup] do_general_protection doesn't disable irq Andrea Arcangeli
@ 2004-07-30 4:22 ` Brian Gerst
2004-07-30 4:45 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-07-30 13:58 ` Karsten Keil
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Brian Gerst @ 2004-07-30 4:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrea Arcangeli; +Cc: Andrew Morton, linux-kernel
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> A trap gate shouldn't affect the irq status at all.
>
> This should be a valid cleanup that removes a slightly confusing noop:
>
> Index: linux-2.5/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/andrea/crypto/cvs/linux-2.5/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.77
> diff -u -p -r1.77 traps.c
> --- linux-2.5/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c 13 Jul 2004 18:02:33 -0000 1.77
> +++ linux-2.5/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c 30 Jul 2004 02:44:23 -0000
> @@ -431,9 +431,6 @@ DO_ERROR_INFO(17, SIGBUS, "alignment che
>
> asmlinkage void do_general_protection(struct pt_regs * regs, long error_code)
> {
> - if (regs->eflags & X86_EFLAGS_IF)
> - local_irq_enable();
> -
> if (regs->eflags & VM_MASK)
> goto gp_in_vm86;
>
>
> Thanks to Karsten for noticing a trap gate doesn't actually enable irq
> by default either (offtopic issue with the above patch, but while
> reading the 2.6 code I found the above bit which just confused me more
> since it's a noop, either that or you meant to use set_intr_gate, not
> set_trap_gate on the do_general_protection handler, but it seems not
> needed to use a trap gate since a trap gate shouldn't enable irqs by
> default). Please correct me if wrong.
This is there for vm86 mode. See http://tinyurl.com/3m5nr
--
Brian Gerst
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [cleanup] do_general_protection doesn't disable irq
2004-07-30 4:22 ` Brian Gerst
@ 2004-07-30 4:45 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-07-30 13:58 ` Karsten Keil
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andrea Arcangeli @ 2004-07-30 4:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brian Gerst; +Cc: Andrew Morton, linux-kernel, Andi Kleen
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 12:22:05AM -0400, Brian Gerst wrote:
> Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >A trap gate shouldn't affect the irq status at all.
> >
> >This should be a valid cleanup that removes a slightly confusing noop:
> >
> >Index: linux-2.5/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c
> >===================================================================
> >RCS file: /home/andrea/crypto/cvs/linux-2.5/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c,v
> >retrieving revision 1.77
> >diff -u -p -r1.77 traps.c
> >--- linux-2.5/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c 13 Jul 2004 18:02:33 -0000
> >1.77
> >+++ linux-2.5/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c 30 Jul 2004 02:44:23 -0000
> >@@ -431,9 +431,6 @@ DO_ERROR_INFO(17, SIGBUS, "alignment che
> >
> > asmlinkage void do_general_protection(struct pt_regs * regs, long
> > error_code)
> > {
> >- if (regs->eflags & X86_EFLAGS_IF)
> >- local_irq_enable();
> >-
> > if (regs->eflags & VM_MASK)
> > goto gp_in_vm86;
> >
> >
> >Thanks to Karsten for noticing a trap gate doesn't actually enable irq
> >by default either (offtopic issue with the above patch, but while
> >reading the 2.6 code I found the above bit which just confused me more
> >since it's a noop, either that or you meant to use set_intr_gate, not
> >set_trap_gate on the do_general_protection handler, but it seems not
> >needed to use a trap gate since a trap gate shouldn't enable irqs by
> >default). Please correct me if wrong.
>
> This is there for vm86 mode. See http://tinyurl.com/3m5nr
and the one for vm86 mode is still there, this was the only needed bit
from the tinyurl you quoted:
gp_in_vm86:
+ local_irq_enable();
the regs->eflags & X86_EFLAGS_IF I removed is still a noop and in turn
it cannot help vm86 as far as I can tell.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [cleanup] do_general_protection doesn't disable irq
2004-07-30 4:22 ` Brian Gerst
2004-07-30 4:45 ` Andrea Arcangeli
@ 2004-07-30 13:58 ` Karsten Keil
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Karsten Keil @ 2004-07-30 13:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel list
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 12:22:05AM -0400, Brian Gerst wrote:
> Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >A trap gate shouldn't affect the irq status at all.
> >
> >This should be a valid cleanup that removes a slightly confusing noop:
> >
> >Index: linux-2.5/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c
> >===================================================================
> >RCS file: /home/andrea/crypto/cvs/linux-2.5/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c,v
> >retrieving revision 1.77
> >diff -u -p -r1.77 traps.c
> >--- linux-2.5/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c 13 Jul 2004 18:02:33 -0000
> >1.77
> >+++ linux-2.5/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c 30 Jul 2004 02:44:23 -0000
> >@@ -431,9 +431,6 @@ DO_ERROR_INFO(17, SIGBUS, "alignment che
> >
> > asmlinkage void do_general_protection(struct pt_regs * regs, long
> > error_code)
> > {
> >- if (regs->eflags & X86_EFLAGS_IF)
> >- local_irq_enable();
> >-
> > if (regs->eflags & VM_MASK)
> > goto gp_in_vm86;
> >
> >
> >Thanks to Karsten for noticing a trap gate doesn't actually enable irq
> >by default either (offtopic issue with the above patch, but while
> >reading the 2.6 code I found the above bit which just confused me more
> >since it's a noop, either that or you meant to use set_intr_gate, not
> >set_trap_gate on the do_general_protection handler, but it seems not
> >needed to use a trap gate since a trap gate shouldn't enable irqs by
> >default). Please correct me if wrong.
>
> This is there for vm86 mode. See http://tinyurl.com/3m5nr
>
It makes also no sense, if the GP comes from VM86 mode, what you
need there is the second hunk in the patch which does local_irq_enable();
if it was from VM86. Note: the trap gate do not touch X86_EFLAGS_IF bit,
so the saved value in regs->eflags is the same as in the CPU EFLAGS register.
--
Karsten Keil
SuSE Labs
ISDN development
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-07-30 14:05 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-07-30 2:53 [cleanup] do_general_protection doesn't disable irq Andrea Arcangeli
2004-07-30 4:22 ` Brian Gerst
2004-07-30 4:45 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-07-30 13:58 ` Karsten Keil
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox