[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] linux-2.5.43_vsyscall_A0
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 06:10:19AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 11:49:59PM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > said:
> > > Guess you'll have some problems then with UML on x86-64, which always
> > > uses vgettimeofday. But it's only used for gettimeofday() currently,
> > > perhaps it's not that bad when the UML child runs with the host's
> > > time.
> >
> > It's not horrible, but it's still broken. There are people who depend
> > on UML being able to keep its own time separately from the host.
> >
> > > I guess it would be possible to add some support for UML to map own
> > > code over the vsyscall reserved locations. UML would need to use the
> > > syscalls then. But it'll be likely ugly.
> >
> > Yeah, it would be.
> >
> > My preferred solution would be for libc to ask the kernel where the vsyscall
> > area is. That's reasonably clean and virtualizable. Andrea doesn't like it
> > because it adds a few instructions to the vsyscall address calculation.
> yes, my preferred solution is still a runtime /proc entry that turns off
> vsyscalls completely by root so you could trap gettimeofday/time via the
> usual ptrace. That would be zero cost. Of course this would be needed

Ok, a sysctl that modifies a variable in the vsyscall page and is
tested by the code. That would be an option, I agree.

For the locked TSC code we will need something like that anyways,
so that locked TSC can force a syscall.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:30    [W:0.139 / U:0.660 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site