• O
    x86: Kill handle_signal()->set_fs() · 73d382de
    Oleg Nesterov 提交于
    handle_signal()->set_fs() has a nice comment which explains what
    set_fs() is, but it doesn't explain why it is needed and why it
    depends on CONFIG_X86_64.
    
    Afaics, the history of this confusion is:
    
    	1. I guess today nobody can explain why it was needed
    	   in arch/i386/kernel/signal.c, perhaps it was always
    	   wrong. This predates 2.4.0 kernel.
    
    	2. then it was copy-and-past'ed to the new x86_64 arch.
    
    	3. then it was removed from i386 (but not from x86_64)
    	   by b93b6ca3 "i386: remove unnecessary code".
    
    	4. then it was reintroduced under CONFIG_X86_64 when x86
    	   unified i386 and x86_64, because the patch above didn't
    	   touch x86_64.
    
    Remove it. ->addr_limit should be correct. Even if it was possible
    that it is wrong, it is too late to fix it after setup_rt_frame().
    
    Linus commented in:
    http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.LFD.0.999.0707170902570.19166@woody.linux-foundation.org
    
    ... about the equivalent bit from i386:
    
    Heh. I think it's entirely historical.
    
    Please realize that the whole reason that function is called "set_fs()" is 
    that it literally used to set the %fs segment register, not 
    "->addr_limit".
    
    So I think the "set_fs(USER_DS)" is there _only_ to match the other
    
            regs->xds = __USER_DS;
            regs->xes = __USER_DS;
            regs->xss = __USER_DS;
            regs->xcs = __USER_CS;
    
    things, and never mattered. And now it matters even less, and has been 
    copied to all other architectures where it is just totally insane.
    Signed-off-by: NOleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
    Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20110710164424.GA20261@redhat.comSigned-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
    73d382de
signal.c 21.1 KB