Re: [RFC/INCOMPLETE 00/13] x86: Rewrite exit-to-userspace code
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Thu Jun 18 2015 - 06:11:25 EST
* Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The only low level bits remaining in assembly will be low level hardware ABI
> > details: saving registers and restoring registers to the expected format - no
> > 'active' code whatsoever.
> I think this is true for syscalls. Getting the weird special cases (IRET and GS
> fault) for error_entry to work correctly in C could be tricky.
Correct, and I double checked the IRET fault path yesterday (fixup_bad_iret), and
it looks like a straightforward exception handler with limited control flow. It
can stay in asm just fine, it seems mostly orthogonal to the rest.
I didn't check the GS fault path, but that only affects 32-bit, as we use SWAPGS
on 64-bit, right? In any case, that code too (32-bit RESTORE_REGS) belongs into
the natural 'hardware ABI preparation code' that should stay in assembly. (Unless
I missed some other code that might cause trouble.)
The most deadly complexity in our asm code are IMHO the intertwined threads of
control flow - all of that should go into C, where it's much easier to see what's
going on, because we have named variables, established code patterns and a
compiler checking for common mistakes and such.
The other big area of complexity are our partial save/restore tricks, which makes
tracking of what is saved (and what is not) tricky and fragile.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/