On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 15:41 +0200, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > According to my documentation it isn't. A software interrupt is a far call
> > with an extra pushf, and a hardware interrupt is protected against recursion
> > by the PIC, not by an interrupt flag.
>
> I disagree with your definition of a system call. The "int 0x80"
> changes from user mode to kernel mode so it is much more powerful than a
> "far call".
Far calls and jumps can change to a inner ring. This is done by a special
segment selector containing the segment _and_ the offset to jump to (the
offset from the call instruction is ignored).
> Also the CPU does protect against recursion and more than
> one interrupt coming in at the same time. The PIC also works with the
> CPU in this regard, but as I shown in my previous email, the interrupt
> flag _does_ protect against it.
Showing == claiming? However, my documentation was wrong.
http://www.baldwin.cx/386htm/INT.htm
--
Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say:
99. Shit!!
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |