From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764608AbYD2QCS (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:02:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756736AbYD2QCA (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:02:00 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.155]:8216 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755985AbYD2QB7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:01:59 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=WvCBwJBBmutVwflzwwTQcikXcjZ0c9Ak4ER9fQ2rcwSOYqzPe5J/2ALY8uvQfDW5AKLXq9h650V1+/V6Yimk1nllem/MR6q249CFeApF/vjby/PCQoDV2rV2+0bL5gGoJWY4T8tuIvBKG2mYMlWE8kw0UBRIShL2kFC1RJsT2B4= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:01:05 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Ingo Molnar , David Woodhouse , LKML , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: vm86 - hide X86_VM_MASK from userland programs v2 Message-ID: <20080429160105.GD6837@cvg> References: <20080424144120.GA7717@cvg> <4810CC2F.3010600@zytor.com> <20080428182323.GD1685@elte.hu> <20080428192039.GA10267@elte.hu> <20080429152947.GB6837@cvg> <20080429154330.GC6837@cvg> <481742C1.5040709@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <481742C1.5040709@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [H. Peter Anvin - Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 08:46:09AM -0700] > Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: >> | | with this patch we have included only >> | if __i386__ defined *BUT* X86_VM_MASK is tried to be >> | used *without* __386__ being checked (as example - >> ptrace.h:user_mode_vm). >> | I'm not sure how to properly hanle this situation. But will take a look. >> | | So I suggest you drop my last patch (which moves X86_VM_MASK >> | into __KERNEL__ section) for a while. I'll recheck all >> | this stuff later (too busy now). >> | | - Cyrill - >> Thomas, could you take a look please - is my suspicious wrong? >> - Cyrill - > > X86_VM_MASK should be defined to zero on x86-64. Part of the reason for > this symbol is so we don't have to put #ifdef around its uses. > > -hpa > Hi Peter, yes, we already have X86_VM_MASK defined to 0 in vm86.h on 64bits cpu - the only question - why this file was not included in ptrace.h even the machine was 32bit cpu configured (according to Ingo's config). I've been suspecting that it's __i386__ who is responsible for that but I was wrong - it's just alias for CONFIG_X86_32. Interesting... ;) Need time to investigate. /And sorry Thomas, I was wrong about your commit/ - Cyrill -