From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755499AbbE2Ht0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2015 03:49:26 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com ([209.85.212.169]:37640 "EHLO mail-wi0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752159AbbE2HtT (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2015 03:49:19 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 09:49:15 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Jan Beulich , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ix86: really make user_mode() work correctly for VM86 mode Message-ID: <20150529074915.GA23623@gmail.com> References: <5566EB0D020000780007E655@mail.emea.novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On May 28, 2015 1:16 AM, "Jan Beulich" wrote: > > > > While commit efa7045103 ("x86/asm/entry: Make user_mode() work > > correctly if regs came from VM86 mode") claims that "user_mode() is now > > identical to user_mode_vm()", this wasn't actually the case - no prior > > commit made it so. > > That's embarrassing! I'm not sure how I screwed that up. I should have noticed it too :-/ In fact I remember that I wanted to double check it all because the algorithmic complexity of the new test looked suspiciously too simple on the 32-bit side (we _did_ have a legitimate reason to keep the API split originally) - but forgot about it. > Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski > > This is needed for x86/urgent. Yeah, queued it up. > [...] I'll see if I can write a simple test case, too. My old do_bounds test > should be a good start. That kind of test would be absolutely fantastic to have. Thanks, Ingo