Hi Laurent, On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 04:56:41PM +0100, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> > Based on that I suspect that qemu-binfmt-conf.sh's current assignment of > > armeb and aarch64 into the arm CPU family is over-optimistic as well. > > So I'd suggest treating all of arm, armeb, aarch64 and aarch64_be as > > separate families. > So it's not like on intel/AMD where we can execute a 32bit binary on a > 64bit kernel? An aarch64 CPU is capable of running arm (i.e. aarch32) code. And I think this is supported as a multilib setup on Linux. But not in mixed endianess as far as I know. Looking at the code again, I'm confused now: Wouldn't the current logic treat an actual i386 machine as capable of running x86_64 binaries natively and omit registering the handler for x86_64? > > Incidentally: I noticed that armeb is missing from qemu_target_list. Is > > that intentional? > no. please fix it :) Will do. > > Okay? > It looks good to me. Based on the above I now lean towards the following assignments: arm_family=arm [...] -armeb_family=arm +armeb_family=armeb [...] aarch64_family=arm [...] -aarch64_be_family=arm +aarch64_be_family=armeb This would be in line with what you recommended, how i386/x86_64 is treated and reflects the principal platform capabilities. -- Bye, Michael
