lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Various x86 syscall mechanisms
From
Date
Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> writes:
>
> I think it is clearest to talk separately about the "intended ABI", the
> "what actually works today", and the "why". (Also note I was not the
> decision-maker in this, just picking up what I can see.)

You are correct.

> For the 32-bit ABI, what I believe was always the intent for what could be
> considered the proper ABI is "int 0x80" or "use the vDSO entry point". If
> someone asked me what you could ever have expected to rely on for the
> future, I would say exactly that. The use of the vDSO is explicitly
> intended to take the details of sysenter/syscall or other such new
> instructions out of the 32-bit ABI picture for what any proper application
> will expect from the kernel.

For SYSENTER the vDSO is even needed because it relies on a hardcoded
return address.

> AMD's were the first x86_64 CPUs, and those always supported "syscall"
> from 32-bit tasks to 64-bit kernels. (I don't know whether AMD CPUs now
> support "sysenter" from 32-bit tasks to 64-bit kernels, and if so which
> past AMD64 CPUs may not have supported that. On today's kernel you could

K8 at least.

> It was long on my back-burner list to toss in the "syscall" version of the
> 32-bit vDSO for 32-bit kernels on hardware that supports "syscall". But,

That would only make a difference on K6 (K7 supports SYSENTER), and also
K6/K7 SYSCALL was slightly different from the K8 version.

-Andi


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-28 07:25    [W:0.116 / U:1.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site