Re: [PATCH] x86: vm86 - hide X86_VM_MASK from userland programs v2

[Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>]

[Cyrill Gorcunov - Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 08:01:05PM +0400]
| [H. Peter Anvin - Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 08:46:09AM -0700]
| > Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| >> | | with this patch we have <asm/vm86.h> 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 -

Hmm, Peter, it seems I've failed again - of course we don't have
this flags set to 0 on 64bit cpu :(

		- Cyrill -