Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:02:29 +0200 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: kill handle_signal()->set_fs() |
| |
So, Peter, do you agree we can remove this set_fs() ?
Of course, this doesn't matter from the perfomance pov. But it is very confusing, especially with CONFIG_X86_64.
On 07/10, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 07/10, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > > On 07/10/2011 09:44 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > handle_signal()->set_fs() has a nice comment which explains what > > > set_fs() is, but it doesn't explain why it is needed and why it > > > depends on CONFIG_X86_64. > > > > > > Afaics, the history of this confusion is: > > > > > > 1. I guess today nobody can explain why it was needed > > > in arch/i386/kernel/signal.c, perhaps it was always > > > wrong. This predates 2.4.0 kernel. > > > > > > 2. then it was copy-and-past'ed to the new x86_64 arch. > > > > > > 3. then it was removed from i386 (but not from x86_64) > > > by b93b6ca3 "i386: remove unnecessary code". > > > > > > 4. then it was reintroduced under CONFIG_X86_64 when x86 > > > unified i386 and x86_64, because the patch above didn't > > > touch x86_64. > > > > > > Remove it. ->addr_limit should be correct. Even if it was possible > > > that it is wrong, it is too late to fix it after setup_rt_frame(). > > > > > > > The main reason I could think of why this would be necessary is if we > > take an event while we have fs == KERNEL_DS inside the kernel > > this is possible if we are the kernel thread, or set_fs(KERNEL_DS) was > called. > > > which is > > then promoted to a signal. > > How? We are going to return to the user-space. Obviously this is not > possible with the kernel thread. So I think this can only happen if > we already have a bug with unbalanced set_fs(). > > Are you absolutely sure that can't happen? > > > In particular, there should be a setting upstream of this, as you're > > correctly pointing out that it's too late. If not, we might actually > > have a problem. > > Hmm... Now I recall, this was already discussed 5 years ago. Thanks to > google, see http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/17/321 > > In particular, Linus sayd: > > Heh. I think it's entirely historical. > > Please realize that the whole reason that function is called "set_fs()" is > that it literally used to set the %fs segment register, not > "->addr_limit". > > So I think the "set_fs(USER_DS)" is there _only_ to match the other > > regs->xds = __USER_DS; > regs->xes = __USER_DS; > regs->xss = __USER_DS; > regs->xcs = __USER_CS; > > things, and never mattered. And now it matters even less, and has been > copied to all other architectures where it is just totally insane. > > Oleg.
| |