From: Andy Lutomirski
> Sent: 05 January 2021 17:35
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:53 AM David Laight wrote:
> > ...
...
> > > > I also wondered about resetting it to zero when an x32 system call
> > > > exits (rather than entry to a 64bit one).
> > > >
> > > > For ia32 the flag is set (with |=)
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 06:03:15PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Yes, the current mainline is bloody awful in that area (PRSTATUS_SIZE and
> > SET_PR_FPVALID are not for weak stomach), but that's really not hard to
> > get into sane shape - -next had that done in last cycle and I'm currently
Hi all!
On Tue, 2021-01-05 at 18:03 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
[...]
> Maybe I am wrong and there are interesting users of x32. All I remember
> is that last time this was discussed someone found a distro that
> actually shipped an x32 build to users. Which was just enough users to
Al Viro writes:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 06:47:38PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >> It is defined in the Ubuntu kernel configs I've got lurking:
>> >> Both 3.8.0-19_generic (Ubuntu 13.04) and 5.4.0-56_generic (probably
>> >> 20.04).
>> >> Which is probably why it is in my test builds
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:53 AM David Laight wrote:
>
> From: Andy Lutomirski
> > Sent: 04 January 2021 23:04
> ...
> > >> The x32 system calls have their own system call table and it would be
> > >> trivial to set a flag like TS_COMPAT when looking up a system call from
> > >> that table. I
From: Andy Lutomirski
> Sent: 04 January 2021 23:04
...
> >> The x32 system calls have their own system call table and it would be
> >> trivial to set a flag like TS_COMPAT when looking up a system call from
> >> that table. I expect such a change would be purely in the noise.
> >
> > Certainly a
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 06:47:38PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> It is defined in the Ubuntu kernel configs I've got lurking:
> >> Both 3.8.0-19_generic (Ubuntu 13.04) and 5.4.0-56_generic (probably 20.04).
> >> Which is probably why it is in my test builds (I've just cut out
> >> a lot of
Andy Lutomirski writes:
>> On Jan 4, 2021, at 2:36 PM, David Laight wrote:
>>
>> From: Eric W. Biederman
>>> Sent: 04 January 2021 20:41
>>>
>>> Al Viro writes:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 12:16:56PM +000
> On Jan 4, 2021, at 2:36 PM, David Laight wrote:
>
> From: Eric W. Biederman
>> Sent: 04 January 2021 20:41
>>
>> Al Viro writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 12:16:56PM +, David Laight wrote:
>>>> On x86 in_compat_syscall() is d
From: Eric W. Biederman
> Sent: 04 January 2021 20:41
>
> Al Viro writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 12:16:56PM +, David Laight wrote:
> >> On x86 in_compat_syscall() is defined as:
> >> in_ia32_syscall() || in_x32_syscall()
> >>
Al Viro writes:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 12:16:56PM +, David Laight wrote:
>> On x86 in_compat_syscall() is defined as:
>> in_ia32_syscall() || in_x32_syscall()
>>
>> Now in_ia32_syscall() is a simple check of the TS_COMPAT flag.
>> However in_x32_sys
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 12:16:56PM +, David Laight wrote:
> On x86 in_compat_syscall() is defined as:
> in_ia32_syscall() || in_x32_syscall()
>
> Now in_ia32_syscall() is a simple check of the TS_COMPAT flag.
> However in_x32_syscall() is a horrid beast that has to ind
Copy x...@kernel.org
> -Original Message-
> From: David Laight
> Sent: 04 January 2021 12:17
> To: Al Viro ; Christoph Hellwig ;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: in_compat_syscall() on x86
>
> On x86 in_compat_syscall() is defined as:
> in_ia32_
On x86 in_compat_syscall() is defined as:
in_ia32_syscall() || in_x32_syscall()
Now in_ia32_syscall() is a simple check of the TS_COMPAT flag.
However in_x32_syscall() is a horrid beast that has to indirect
through to the original %eax value (ie the syscall number) and
check for a bit
14 matches
Mail list logo
