On 10/10/2014 03:03 AM, James Hogan wrote:
I just mean an (illegal/undefined) sequence of FPU branch instructions
in one anothers delay slots shouldn't be able to crash the kernel.
Actually 2 of them would be enough to verify the kernel didn't get too
confused. Maybe the second will be detected & ignored, or maybe it
doesn't matter if the first emuframe gets overwritten by the second
one from the kernels point of view.
Yes, I am looking into that sequences. I try to keep both emulators
isolated from the rest of kernel and from each other as much as possible
but intercalls via illegal combinations are still possible.
> From Peter Zijlstra:
> Right, look at uprobes, it does exactly all this with a single page.
> Slot allocation will block waiting for a free slot when all are in use.
I don't see a reason to change my 300 lines design into much more
lengthy code. That code has more links to the rest of kernel and high
possibility to execute atomic operation/locks/mutex/etc - I can't do it
for emulation of MIPS locking instructions.