* Brian Gerst <brge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The original one wasn't really a misnomer, as it referred to the ia32
> >> system
> >> calls specifically, but this works too.
> >
> > It was a misnomer, because what are the 'ia32 system calls'? We have no
> > Intel
> > specific system calls!
> >
> > The term 'IA32' (Intel Architecture 32-bit) is a misnomer in many existing
> > arch/x86/ symbol, function and file names, and most of them should be
> > renamed.
> >
> > Some common examples, with a suggested rename target:
> >
> > stack_frame_ia32 -> stack_frame_compat
> > IA32_RT_SIGFRAME_sigcontext -> COMPAT_RT_SIGFRAME_sigcontext
> > sigcontext_ia32 -> sigcontext_compat
> > user_i387_ia32_struct -> user_i387_compat_struct
> > TIF_IA32 -> TIF_COMPAT
> >
> > and here a few 'ia32' misnomers that should be addressed not via simple
> > renames,
> > but via transformations to existing compat facilities:
> >
> > CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION -> partly eliminate, partly covert to
> > CONFIG_COMPAT use
>
> I think we still want a symbol for code that is exclusive to 32-bit
> compatibility (like entry and signal code) to keep it separate from X32 which
> also wants CONFIG_COMPAT. If I get time this weekend I'll get the patchset
> to
> do the separation updated to the tip branch.
Ok, so your goal is to allow the x32 ABI, but not 32-bit user-space?
I suppose that makes some sense, it might be a valid 'attack surface reduction'
technique, while still allowing the x32 ABI.
But I'm not sure we should bother and complicate things: 32-bit compat isn't
going
away anytime soon, and most of CONFIG_COMPAT is needed for x32.
So maybe we could introduce CONFIG_X86_32_ABI=y or so, which would cover just
the
32-bit entry code and the signal frame compatibility layer?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
