On Tuesday 16 May 2006 04:29, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
>
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 21:56:18 +0400, Stas Sergeev wrote:
>
> > Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Handling it like you expect would require to disassemble
> > > the function in the page fault handler and it's probably not
> > > worth doing that for this weird case.
> > Just wondering, is this case really that weird?
> > In fact, the check against %esp that the kernel
> > does, looks strange. I realize that it can catch a
> > (very rare) user-space bug of accessing below %esp, but
> > other than that it looks redundant (IMHO) and as soon as
> > it triggers the false-positives, what is it really good for?
>
> I can't get a SIGSEGV on any native i386 kernel, not even when
> running on AMD64. It only happens on native x86_64 kernels.
I reproduced the original SIGSEGV on several i386 kernels.
> Intel says nothing about a write check. Is that a mistake in the manual
> or is that something only AMD64 does, and then only in long mode?
In 98+% of all cases when Intel and AMD documentation differ
in subtle detail it's a documentation bug.
-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/
[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]
