Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 06:14:36AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > x86-64 doesn't load the segment registers at all before use.
>
> Yes, before switching to 64bit long mode we never do any data access. We do a
> stack access to clear eflags only while we still run in legacy mode with paging
> disabled and so we only rely on ss to be valid when the bootloader jumps at
> 0x100000 for executing the head.S code (and not anymore on the gdt_48 layout).
Nope you rely on cs & ds as well. cs is just a duh the codes running
so it must be valid. But ds is needed for lgdt.
> > I can tell you don't have real hardware. The non obviousness
I need to retract this a bit. You are still building a compressed image,
and the code in the boot/compressed/head.S remains unchanged and loads
segment registers, so it works by luck. If you didn't build a
compressed image you would be in trouble.
> Current code definitely works fine on the simnow simulator so if current code
> shouldn't work because it's buggy then at least the simulator is sure buggy as
> well (and that isn't going to be the case as its behaviour is in full sync with
> the specs as far I can see).
Add a target for a noncompressed image and then build. It should be
interesting to watch.
>
> > So while you load the gdt before you set a segment register later,
> > which is good the more important part was still missed.
>
> Sorry but I don't see the missing part. Are you sure you're not missing this
> part of the x86-64 specs?
Nope because what I was complaining about is in 32 bit mode. :)
> Data and Stack Segments:
>
> In 64-bit mode, the contents of the ES, DS, and SS segment registers
> are ignored. All fields (base, limit, and attribute) in the
> corresponding segment descriptor registers (hidden part) are also
> ignored.
Hmm. I'll have to look and see if FS & GS are also ignored.
> Address calculations in 64-bit mode that reference the ES, DS, or SS
> segments, are treated as if the segment base is zero. Rather than
> perform limit checks, the processor instead checks that all
> virtual-address references are in canonical form.
Cool I like this bit. The segments are finally dead.
> > O.k. on monday I'll dig up my patch and that clears this up.
>
> Sure, go ahead if you weren't missing that basic part of the long mode specs.
> Thanks.
Nope. Though I suspect we should do the switch to 64bit mode in
setup.S and not have these issues pollute head.S at all.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 15 2000 - 21:00:22 EST