lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/31 v2] PTI support for x86_32
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 09:25:34AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:54 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 09:40:41AM -0800, Mark D Rustad wrote:
> >>
> >> ISTR that iscsi doesn't work when running a 64-bit kernel with a
> >> 32-bit userspace. I remember someone offered kernel patches to fix it,
> >> but I think they were rejected. I haven't messed with that stuff in
> >> many years, so perhaps the userspace side now has accommodation for
> >> it. It might be something to check on.
> >
> > IPSEC doesn't work with a 64bit kernel and 32bit userspace right now.
> >
> > Back in 2015 someone started to work on that, and properly marked that
> > the kernel could not handle this with commit 74005991b78a ("xfrm: Do not
> > parse 32bits compiled xfrm netlink msg on 64bits host")
> >
> > This is starting to be hit by some Android systems that are moving
> > (yeah, slowly) to 4.4 :(
>
> Does anybody have test-programs/harnesses for this?

Lorenzo (now on the To: line), is the one that I think is looking into
this, and should have some sort of test for it. Lorenzo?

> This is an area I care deeply about: I really want people to not have
> any excuses for not upgrading to a 64-bit kernel. It used to be
> autofs (I actually added that whole "packetized pipe" model just to
> make automount "just w ork" even though the stupid protocol used a
> pipe to send command packets that had different layout on 32-bit and
> 64-bit).
>
> See commit 64f371bc3107 ("autofs: make the autofsv5 packet file
> descriptor use a packetized pipe") for some discussion of that
> particular saga.
>
> Some drm people used to run 32-bit kernels because of compat worries,
> and that would have been a disaster. They got very good about not
> having compat issues.
>
> So let's try to fix the iscsi and ipsec issues. Not that anybody sane
> should use that overly complex ipsec thing, and I think we should
> strive to merge WireGuard and get people moved over to that instead,
> but I haven't heard anything from davem about it since I last asked..
> I have some hope that it's slowly happening.

WireGuard is still being worked on, it needs some crypto library changes
that should be coming soon, but will probably be 6 months out at the
earliest to get merged. There are still lots of people using IPSEC :(

thanks,

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-14 09:54    [W:0.099 / U:5.316 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site