Message-ID: <48A4980C.8030805@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:39:40 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
       Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>,
       Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
       Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
       Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
       Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>,
       Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
       Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>,
       Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
       "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@uudg.org>,
       Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
       Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86 alternatives : fix LOCK_PREFIX race with	preemptible
 kernel and CPU hotplug
References: <48A3A806.8060509@goop.org> <20080814151805.GA29507@Krystal> <48A459B1.2070601@zytor.com> <20080814165802.GC517@Krystal> <48A465F2.8000701@goop.org> <20080814173021.GA4697@Krystal> <48A46EC2.1010301@goop.org> <48A47B83.3090408@zytor.com> <20080814185338.GB7896@Krystal> <48A487A6.9060501@goop.org> <20080814203122.GC7896@Krystal>
In-Reply-To: <20080814203122.GC7896@Krystal>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1941
Lines: 52

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> 
> I'm just worried about this comment from Harvey Harrison :
> 
> arch/x86/mm/fault.c : is_prefetch()
> 
>                          * Values 0x26,0x2E,0x36,0x3E are valid x86 prefixes.
>                          * In X86_64 long mode, the CPU will signal invalid
>                          * opcode if some of these prefixes are present so
>                          * X86_64 will never get here anyway
>                          */
> 
> This comment refers to :
> 
> 0x26 : ES segment override prefix
> 0x2E : CS segment override prefix
> 0x36 : SS segment override prefix
> 0x3E : DS segment override prefix
> 
> AMD documentation seems to indicate that these prefix will be null, not
> that the cpu would signal "invalid opcodes" :
> 
> "AMD 64-Bit Technology" A.7
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/x86-64_overview.pdf
> 
> "In 64-bit mode, the DS, ES, SS and CS segment-override prefixes have no effect.
> These four prefixes are no longer treated as segment-override prefixes in the
> context of multipleprefix rules. Instead, they are treated as null prefixes."
> 
> Intel does not seem to state anything particular about these prefixes
> for the 64-bit mode.
> 
> So, is this comment misleading, or is it using the term "invalid opcode"
> in a way that does not imply generating a fault ?
> 

They do not signal faults, there just aren't any base addresses behind 
them.  Some AMD chips allow limits to be set on these segments -- 
apparently added on behalf of some hypervisor makers; I suspect that 
VMX/SVM is making that quickly obsolete.

So it should be just fine.

Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>

	-hpa

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/