Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 4 Apr 2015 13:07:57 -0400 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86/signal: Remove pax argument from restore_sigcontext | From | Brian Gerst <> |
| |
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote: > > * Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The pax argument is unnecesary. Instead, store the RAX value directly >> in regs. >> >> Signed-off-by: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> >> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> >> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> >> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> >> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> >> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> >> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> >> Cc: x86@kernel.org >> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> --- >> arch/x86/ia32/ia32_signal.c | 17 ++++++----------- >> arch/x86/include/asm/sighandling.h | 4 +--- >> arch/x86/kernel/signal.c | 22 ++++++++-------------- >> 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/ia32/ia32_signal.c b/arch/x86/ia32/ia32_signal.c >> index 1f5e2b0..c81d35e6 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/ia32/ia32_signal.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/ia32/ia32_signal.c >> @@ -161,8 +161,7 @@ int copy_siginfo_from_user32(siginfo_t *to, compat_siginfo_t __user *from) >> } >> >> static int ia32_restore_sigcontext(struct pt_regs *regs, >> - struct sigcontext_ia32 __user *sc, >> - unsigned int *pax) >> + struct sigcontext_ia32 __user *sc) >> { >> unsigned int tmpflags, err = 0; >> void __user *buf; >> @@ -184,7 +183,7 @@ static int ia32_restore_sigcontext(struct pt_regs *regs, >> RELOAD_SEG(es); >> >> COPY(di); COPY(si); COPY(bp); COPY(sp); COPY(bx); >> - COPY(dx); COPY(cx); COPY(ip); >> + COPY(dx); COPY(cx); COPY(ip); COPY(ax); >> /* Don't touch extended registers */ >> >> COPY_SEG_CPL3(cs); >> @@ -197,8 +196,6 @@ static int ia32_restore_sigcontext(struct pt_regs *regs, >> >> get_user_ex(tmp, &sc->fpstate); >> buf = compat_ptr(tmp); >> - >> - get_user_ex(*pax, &sc->ax); >> } get_user_catch(err); > > Note that arch/x86/kernel/signal.c appears to have a similar pattern - > and there it could be removed as well?
I'm guessing you didn't read the whole patch, because I did change it.
> I'm wondering what the original reason for adding the extra handling > of regs->ax was. Maybe something changed regs->ax - but I cannot find > such code path anymore. > > It would be nice to try to do a bit of Git archeology to figure out > the origins of this complication - maybe it's something subtle - or > it's something that has changed meanwhile.
| |