From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932382AbYD2QJd (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:09:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754997AbYD2QJY (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:09:24 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.152]:23747 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751257AbYD2QJX (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:09:23 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=cpHQWM77wbL/FTsRiPG6FskvNXIgAZ/IszBI6NxWnRVD+J9mZMF6NYGk4QxQVRgYzV0gORhr/59QM31AdhANtWLJJiArEs5HJk+Z3epiuAzqTyVaA+P8tpAei+WKZ2sywoFGpc9CLsIL4+3F3JgHleWKamQE9dCqNcxsUeyACpI= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:08:32 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , David Woodhouse , LKML , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: vm86 - hide X86_VM_MASK from userland programs v2 Message-ID: <20080429160832.GE6837@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> <20080429160105.GD6837@cvg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080429160105.GD6837@cvg> 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 [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 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 -