On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@xxxxxxx> wrote:Yes, but that's why I was talking about some new
12.08.2015 23:01, Andy Lutomirski ÐÐÑÐÑ:Maybe, except that doing this might break existing code (Wine and Java
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@xxxxxxx> wrote:Assuming the bases are made the part of a sigcontext,
12.08.2015 22:20, Andy Lutomirski ÐÐÑÐÑ:Any of the above. What do you want the kernel to do, and how does the
current kernels, it stays switched. If we change this, it won't stayThere can be the following cases:
switched. Even ignoring old ABI, it's not really clear to me what the
right thing to do is.
- switch_userspace_thread() switches fs to non-zero selector
- switch_userspace_thread() switches the fs base via syscall
- switch_userspace_thread() switches fs in sigcontext
- switch_userspace_thread() switches fs_base in sigcontext (???)
What exactly case do you have in mind?
I'd say, the way x86_32 is doing things - is good, but the
bases... perhaps, in ideal world, they should be a part of
the sigcontext as well?
kernel know you want to do that? The kernel has to pick *some*
I'd say there would be no ambiguities remained at all:
whatever you change in a sigcontext, will be "applied" by
the sigreturn(). Whatever you put in the registers
(either segregs or MSRs), is valid until sigreturn(), then
The mess only comes in when some things are part of
sigcontext and some are not. But if you have _all_ things
accessable in sigcontext, then the user has a way of expressing
his needs very clearly: he'll either touch sigcontext or direct
values, depending on what he need.
Is this right?
come to mind). I'm not really sure.
Anyway, can you give this and its parent a try::(
If they fix the problem for you, I'll improve the test cases and send
them to -stable.