* Al Viro <[email protected]> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
