Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] x86: Expand exception table to allow new handling options
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Date: 2016-01-09 01:53:16
Also in:
lkml
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Tony Luck [off-list ref] wrote:
Huge amounts of help from Andy Lutomirski and Borislav Petkov to produce this. Andy provided the inspiration to add classes to the exception table with a clever bit-squeezing trick, Boris pointed out how much cleaner it would all be if we just had a new field. Linus Torvalds blessed the expansion with: I'd rather not be clever in order to save just a tiny amount of space in the exception table, which isn't really criticial for anybody. The third field is a simple integer indexing into an array of handler functions (I thought it couldn't be a relative pointer like the other fields because a module may have its ex_table loaded more than 2GB away from the handler function - but that may not be actually true. But the integer is pretty flexible, we are only really using low two bits now). We start out with three handlers: 0: Legacy - just jumps the to fixup IP 1: Fault - provide the trap number in %ax to the fixup code 2: Cleaned up legacy for the uaccess error hack
I think I preferred the relative function pointer approach. Also, I think it would be nicer if the machine check code would invoke the handler regardless of which handler (or class) is selected. Then the handlers that don't want to handle #MC can just reject them. Also, can you make the handlers return bool instead of int? --Andy -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>