Re: [patch] i386: remove IOPL check on task switch

 
> Ok, checking shows Linus put it back to stop NT leakage. 

It is also needed to stop AC leakage

> This is  
> correct, but unlikely.  Would be nice to avoid it unless absolutely 
> necessary.  Perhaps xor eflags old and new and only set_system_eflags() 
> if non-ALU bits have changed.

If it's worth it...

If it's worth for the context switch i think it would make 
more sense to do it for the normal restore_flags() etc. which are much
more common (and could be actually handled in most cases with test + jump + sti)

-Andi
-
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/

---

• References:
  • Re: [patch] i386: remove IOPL check on task switch
    • From: Chuck Ebbert <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] i386: remove IOPL check on task switch
    • From: Zachary Amsden <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] i386: remove IOPL check on task switch
    • From: Zachary Amsden <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] htirq: Allow buggy drivers of buggy hardware to write the registers.
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] IRQ: ease out-of-tree migration to new irq_handler prototype
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch] i386: remove IOPL check on task switch
• Next by thread: [PATCH] Fix for LKDTM MEM_SWAPOUT crashpoint
• 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]