On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 06:10:19AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 11:49:59PM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > ak@muc.de said:
> > > Guess you'll have some problems then with UML on x86-64, which always
> > > uses vgettimeofday. But it's only used for gettimeofday() currently,
> > > perhaps it's not that bad when the UML child runs with the host's
> > > time.
> >
> > It's not horrible, but it's still broken. There are people who depend
> > on UML being able to keep its own time separately from the host.
> >
> > > I guess it would be possible to add some support for UML to map own
> > > code over the vsyscall reserved locations. UML would need to use the
> > > syscalls then. But it'll be likely ugly.
> >
> > Yeah, it would be.
> >
> > My preferred solution would be for libc to ask the kernel where the vsyscall
> > area is. That's reasonably clean and virtualizable. Andrea doesn't like it
> > because it adds a few instructions to the vsyscall address calculation.
>
> yes, my preferred solution is still a runtime /proc entry that turns off
> vsyscalls completely by root so you could trap gettimeofday/time via the
> usual ptrace. That would be zero cost. Of course this would be needed
Ok, a sysctl that modifies a variable in the vsyscall page and is
tested by the code. That would be an option, I agree.
For the locked TSC code we will need something like that anyways,
so that locked TSC can force a syscall.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 23 2002 - 22:00:46 EST