Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:40:41 +0100 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: set_personality_ia32() abuses TS_COMPAT |
| |
On 02/16, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > On 02/16/2010 09:44 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > and, following this logic, shouldn't set_personality_64bit() clear > > TS_COMPAT ? > > It's quite possible it should... I haven't dug into if that isn't either > done elsewhere or isn't done for some other reason. This would be worth > looking into.
OK. This was another source of confusion for me...
> > OK, in any case I do not claim we need fixes. Just I am confused. > > Trying to understand the code is good. However, you seem to have > started out with a point of view that we should have the minimal set of > state changes possible
Well, I must admit... the only point of this patch was "please change your code so that I could convince myself I understand what it does" ;)
> instead of keeping state as self-consistent as > possible. Invariants are a Very Good Thing. Documented invariants are > even better ;)
Agreed! But to me it looks as if TS_COMPAT breaks invariants. In particular, because set_personality_64bit() didn't clear this flag.
Anyway. At least I can assume there is no "hard" reason to set this bit currently, and this was my main question.
Thanks to all for your explanations!
Oleg.
| |