From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754303AbbFRKO6 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 18 Jun 2015 06:14:58 -0400
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]:33118 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754117AbbFRKOj (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 18 Jun 2015 06:14:39 -0400
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 12:14:34 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/INCOMPLETE 00/13] x86: Rewrite exit-to-userspace code
Message-ID: <20150618101433.GA6149@gmail.com>
References: <cover.1434485184.git.luto@kernel.org>
 <20150617094857.GB3940@gmail.com>
 <CALCETrWEK7PyqSh3bWhkXH3J-CRgjyYUU5-YLNO0_1p5-wgGwg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrWEK7PyqSh3bWhkXH3J-CRgjyYUU5-YLNO0_1p5-wgGwg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:

> > So assuming you fix the UML build I'm inclined to go for it, even in this 
> > incomplete form, to increase testing coverage.
> >
> > Doing that will also decrease ongoing merge friction between your work and 
> > other entry code cleanups ...
> 
> Sounds good to me.  I'm not convinced this is 4.2 material, though. Would it go 
> in a separate branch for now?

Please send it out as a separate series, on top of -tip, I'll probably stick it 
into a separate branch for the time being.

> On a related note, do you have any idea what work_notifysig_v86 in entry_32.S is 
> for?  It seems unnecessary and wrong to me.  Unnecessary because we have 
> return_to_32bit.  Wrong because I don't see how we can reliably enter vm86 mode 
> if we have exit work enabled -- one of the giant turds in vm86_32.c literally 
> jumps from C code to resume_userspace on vm86 entry, and resume_userspace 
> promptly checks for work and might land in work_notifysig_v86 before we ever 
> make it to v8086/user mode.
> 
> I think it may actually be impossible to use vm86 under ptrace.  ISTR I had some 
> trouble when trying to strace my test case...

Should be tested really, I'm all for removing it if simple vm86 mode games 
continue to work ;-)

Thanks,

	Ingo