On 08/13/2014 01:06 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 August 2014 03:06:53 Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>> On the kernel side, it also adds more complexity, where we have to add
>>> even more complex compat support for 64bit systems to handle all the
>>> various 32bit applications possible.
>> [...]
>>
>> Didn't we need to do this already to support x32? Have compat ioctls
>> involving time been botched?
>
> AFAICT, every ioctl that involves passing a __kernel_ulong_t or
> __kernel_ulong_t is potentially broken on x32, and this includes
> everything passing a time_t or timespec.
>
> The problem is that the libc ioctl() function ends up in the kernel's
> compat_ioctl handler, which expects the 32-bit ABI, not the 64-bit ABI.
> Most other syscalls in x32 however use the 64-bit ABI.
>
> It works only for drivers that use the same function for .ioctl and
> .compat_ioctl, and that encode the size of the data structure correctly
> in the ioctl command code. I assume this is how we will do it for all
> 32-bit architectures with 64-bit time_t, but on x32 it also concerns
> other types that use __kernel_long_t.
>
OK, super-late reply.
Actually we have by and large dealt with that. Sadly this meant an
increase in the number of paths with conditional ABI.
-hpa
--
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/
