Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:08:32 +0400 | From | Cyrill Gorcunov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: vm86 - hide X86_VM_MASK from userland programs v2 |
| |
[Cyrill Gorcunov - Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 08:01:05PM +0400] | [H. Peter Anvin - Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 08:46:09AM -0700] | > Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: | >> | | with this patch we have <asm/vm86.h> included only | >> | if __i386__ defined *BUT* X86_VM_MASK is tried to be | >> | used *without* __386__ being checked (as example - | >> ptrace.h:user_mode_vm). | >> | I'm not sure how to properly hanle this situation. But will take a look. | >> | | So I suggest you drop my last patch (which moves X86_VM_MASK | >> | into __KERNEL__ section) for a while. I'll recheck all | >> | this stuff later (too busy now). | >> | | - Cyrill - | >> Thomas, could you take a look please - is my suspicious wrong? | >> - Cyrill - | > | > X86_VM_MASK should be defined to zero on x86-64. Part of the reason for | > this symbol is so we don't have to put #ifdef around its uses. | > | > -hpa | > | | Hi Peter, | | yes, we already have X86_VM_MASK defined to 0 in vm86.h on 64bits | cpu - the only question - why this file was not included in ptrace.h | even the machine was 32bit cpu configured (according to Ingo's config). | I've been suspecting that it's __i386__ who is responsible for that but | I was wrong - it's just alias for CONFIG_X86_32. Interesting... ;) | Need time to investigate. /And sorry Thomas, I was wrong about your | commit/ | | - Cyrill -
Hmm, Peter, it seems I've failed again - of course we don't have this flags set to 0 on 64bit cpu :(
- Cyrill -
| |