lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PSEUDOPATCH] rename is_compat_task

* Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 05:36:49AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > So are there any deep objections to doing this rename in a single, quick,
> > pain-minimized fashion right at the end of the next merge window, when the
> > amount of pending patches in various maintainer trees is at a cyclical
> > minimum? We can also keep an is_compat_task() migratory define for one more
> > cycle just in case.
>
> Again, what about sparc? There we have both 64bit and 32bit syscalls possible
> to issue from the same process *and* no indication which trap had been used; how
> do you implement is_compat_syscall() there? There's a TIF_32BIT, which is used
> by mmap() and friends, signal delivery, etc., but that's not a matter of which
> syscall flavour had been issued. Said that, arch/sparc doesn't use
> is_compat_task(); it's open-coded everywhere...

Hm, so if Sparc has no notion of compat-ness of the system call then how does it
implement runtime compat checks, such as AUDIT_ARCH et al?

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-12-08 06:21    [W:0.035 / U:0.752 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site