Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1612563
| From | Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention |
| Date | 2017-03-30 07:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tqAF3-1qi-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (10 earlier) <tpMyB-7km-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tpMyB-7km-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tpVVg-5DA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <tqdyO-1J4-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <tqtaz-4hp-33@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 23:55 +0300, Stas Sergeev wrote: > 29.03.2017 07:38, Ricardo Neri пишет: > >> Probably you could also remove > >> the sldt and str emulation for protected mode, because, > >> as I understand from this thread, wine does not > >> need those. > > I see. I would lean on keeping the emulation because I already > > implemented it :), for completeness, and because it is performed in a > > single switch. The bulk of the emulation code deals with operands. > But this is not for free. > As Andy said, you will then need a syscall and > a feature mask to be able to disable this emulation. > And AFAIK you haven't implemented that yet, so > there is something to consider. Right, I see your point. > >>>> You know the wine's > >>>> requirements now - they are very small. And > >>>> dosemu doesn't need anything at all but smsw. > >>>> And even smsw is very rare. > >>> But emulation is still needed for SMSW, right? > >> Likely so. > >> If you want, I can enable the logging of this command > >> and see if it is used by some of the DOS programs I have. > > It would be great if you could do that, if you don't mind. > OK, scheduled to the week-end. > I'll let you know. Thanks! > > >> But at least dosemu implements it, so probably it is needed. > > Right. > > > >> Of course if it is used by one of 100 DOS progs, then there > >> is an option to just add its support to dosemu2 and pretend > >> the compatibility problems did not exist. :) > > Do you mean relaying the GP fault to dosemu instead of trapping it and > > emulating it in the kernel? > Yes, that would be optimal if this does not severely break > the current setups. If we can find out that smsw is not in > the real use, we can probably do exactly that. > But other > instructions are not in real use in v86 for sure, so I > wouldn't be adding the explicit test-cases to the kernel > that will make you depend on some particular behaviour > that no one may need. > My objection was that we shouldn't > write tests before we know exactly how we want this to work. OK, if only SMSW is used then I'll keep the emulation for SMSW only.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> - 2017-03-28 01:50 +0200
Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2017-03-28 11:50 +0200
Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> - 2017-03-29 06:40 +0200
Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2017-03-29 23:20 +0200
Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> - 2017-03-30 07:20 +0200
Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2017-03-30 12:20 +0200
Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> - 2017-03-31 03:40 +0200
Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention Alexandre Julliard <julliard@winehq.org> - 2017-03-31 17:00 +0200
Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2017-03-31 23:50 +0200
Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> - 2017-04-01 04:20 +0200
Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> - 2017-04-04 04:10 +0200
Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention Alexandre Julliard <julliard@winehq.org> - 2017-04-04 08:10 +0200
Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2017-04-01 15:10 +0200
Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> - 2017-04-01 20:10 +0200
Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2017-04-02 18:00 +0200
Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2017-04-04 12:10 +0200
Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> - 2017-04-04 04:10 +0200
Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> - 2017-04-04 10:10 +0200
csiph-web