Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>> Well, the 32-bit code needs to set up its own stack, and only it knows where
>> it wants its stack; we don't guarantee that the stack is valid when we enter
>> the 32-bit code and we're entering with both INT and NMI disabled (requiring a
>> stack would probably break all existing users of the 32-bit entrypoint.)
>
> I agree. But it would be nice if some basic instructions still worked: as
> is, you cannot even do things like reloading %eflags, because the only way
> to do that requires a stack.
>
>> However, that being said, doing so is trivial, and it might help some
>> debugging hack; anything that makes debugging easier is a Good Thing[TM].
>
> Yeah. Even if it was just re-using the boot-time stack area temporarily,
> just to give code the choice to use a common set of instructions.
If I had to do it from scratch today I would make the 32-bit entry
point require a stack, segments and use C calling conventions to pass
struct boot_params *.
Besides %esi I'm not really fond of requiring anything in the 32bit
entrypoint. At the same time I totally agree that it is always nice
to provide way more then you need.
Eric
-
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]
