Re: x86_64: vsyscall vs vdso

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Francis Moreau <francis.moro@...>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - 4:31 am

Francis Moreau writes:
 > On 9/17/07, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@gmail.com> wrote:
 > > On 9/17/07, Francis Moreau <francis.moro@gmail.com> wrote:
 > > > I think signal trampolines will still need them too. So making
 > > > vsyscalls configurable doesn't seem to work, does it ?
 > >
 > > vsyscalls aren't used for that.  We have a restorer in libc and could
 > > easily use one in the vdso.  That's what is done on x86.
 > >
 > 
 > Sorry for my ignorance but what' is 'a restorer' ?

When the kernel sets up the context for a user-space signal
handler, it needs to supply a return address (in a register
or on the stack). That's the restorer. The restorer points
to a stub that performs sys_{rt_,}sigreturn(). Depending on
architecture and kernel version, the restorer stub can be
defined by libc, or be provided automatically by the kernel.
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
x86_64: vsyscall vs vdso, Francis Moreau, (Sun Sep 16, 4:24 pm)
Re: x86_64: vsyscall vs vdso, Ulrich Drepper, (Sun Sep 16, 4:46 pm)
Re: x86_64: vsyscall vs vdso, Francis Moreau, (Mon Sep 17, 4:31 pm)
Re: x86_64: vsyscall vs vdso, Ulrich Drepper, (Tue Sep 18, 12:58 pm)
Re: x86_64: vsyscall vs vdso, Francis Moreau, (Mon Sep 17, 3:30 am)
Re: x86_64: vsyscall vs vdso, Ulrich Drepper, (Mon Sep 17, 10:35 am)
Re: x86_64: vsyscall vs vdso, Francis Moreau, (Mon Sep 17, 4:22 pm)
Re: x86_64: vsyscall vs vdso, Mikael Pettersson, (Tue Sep 18, 4:31 am)