From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754277Ab1HWADy (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:03:54 -0400
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:52741 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753744Ab1HWADw (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:03:52 -0400
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 01:03:14 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@mit.edu>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@amd64.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" 
	<user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [uml-devel] SYSCALL, ptrace and syscall restart breakages (Re:
 [RFC] weird crap with vdso on uml/i386)
Message-ID: <20110823000314.GW2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <4E51D597.3060800@zytor.com>
 <20110822095336.GB25949@kernel.org>
 <CAObL_7F6D8nQovf+aJGiEOF1mBpBU8RwtjNA-5myxvEBRRHgsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110822144051.GD2946@aftab>
 <20110822151305.GV2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFwoRO9xxnTyt_gYFdTS9LsaFoCWRuyNeXY7gvrE8CdZ0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <4E52B7F8.3050002@zytor.com>
 <CAObL_7GmMXPUE0Oix1CKTYzqheyJV+ua=WEBUQk5m-LGsvqihw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4E52D280.3010107@zytor.com>
 <CA+55aFw4C+ShLHF2NYZMQ-Lhjow3mJ62_eqO_iAww2nh7V_-Uw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFw4C+ShLHF2NYZMQ-Lhjow3mJ62_eqO_iAww2nh7V_-Uw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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...