Re: [PATCH] x86_64: handle iret faults better

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> But I really hate your is_iret hack in traps.c. 

I agree.

Why don't you just do

	pushl $0
	pushl $do_iret_error
	jmp error_code

And just have a "do_iret_error()" handler in traps.c which does the right
thing? That seems like the _sane_ thing to do, and that way there is never
any confusion about what is going on.

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] x86_64: handle iret faults better
    • From: Roland McGrath <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] x86_64: handle iret faults better
    • From: Roland McGrath <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] x86_64: handle iret faults better
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Git-commits mailing list feed.
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH x86_64] Live Patching Function on 2.6.11.7
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] x86_64: handle iret faults better
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] x86_64: handle iret faults better
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]