Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Intel MPX support

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 01/27/2014 11:01 PM, Ren Qiaowei wrote:
> 
> Yes. Though all non-MPX threads are slowed down, the whole process
> benefit from MPX.
> 
> Anyway, HPA suggest these syscalls, which use MMU notifier, should be
> not needed, we can do what they do in userspace runtime. What do you
> think about it? I guess that I should remove the third patch which adds
> new prctl() syscalls in next version of this patchset.
> 

The syscalls is one thing, managing the bounds map in kernel space is
another.

We could manage the bounds map entirely in user space in a signal
handler, but that has both ABI issues (#BR currently turns into SIGSEGV
which is commonly hooked by applications; we could switch to a different
signal but there aren't many unclaimed ones) and performance issues.

I would think it would be extremely unusual for an application to have
some MPX and some non-MPX threads, since they would share the same
address space and the non-MPX threads would mess up the bounds.

	-hpa


--
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/