[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] x86: fix text_poke
    * Linus Torvalds ( wrote:
    > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > >
    > > something like the patch below? (untested)
    > No. That whole code sequence is total and utter crap. It needs to be
    > rewritten.
    > It first does a BUG_ON() if it's not naturally aligned (because that
    > wouldn't be atomic), and then it has code for page crossing! What a TOTAL
    > PIECE OF SH*T!
    > Hint:
    > - if it's naturally aligned, it couldn't be page crossing ANYWAY
    > - and if it was a page-crosser, it sure as hell couldn't be atomic!
    > The code is just crap, crap, crap. It needs to be rewritten from scratch.
    > I'll have a patch soonish.
    > Linus

    Woooow, just a sec here. I removed the atomicity test _because_ there
    happen to be a case where it's safe to do non-atomic instruction
    modification. If we do :

    1) replace the instruction first byte by a breakpoint, execute an
    instruction bypass (see the immediate values patches for detail)
    2) modify the instruction non-atomically
    3) put back the original instruction first byte.

    That's why I removed the BUG_ONs at the beginning of the function.
    That's also why it's required to deal with page crossing.


    Mathieu Desnoyers
    Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
    OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-04-25 17:57    [W:0.021 / U:93.444 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site