[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64: seccomp: fix 32/64 syscall hole

To: Roland McGrath <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64: seccomp: fix 32/64 syscall hole
From: Linus Torvalds <>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 09:23:36 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Andrew Morton <>,,,,,,
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902271932520.3111@localhost.localdomain> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902271948570.3111@localhost.localdomain> <>
User-agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23)

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I don't know any other arch well enough to be sure that TIF_32BIT isn't the
> wrong test there too.  I'd like to leave that worry to the arch maintainers.

Agreed - it may be that others will want to not use TIF_32BIT too. It 
really does make much more sense to have it as a thread-local status flag 
than as an atomic (and thus expensive to modify) thread-flag, not just on 

But I think other architectures will find it easier to see what's going on 
if the code is straightforward and they can just fix their 
'is_compat_task()' function. And:

> But here is the patch you asked for.

Yes, this looks much more straightforward. 

And I guess the seccomp interaction means that this is potentially a 
2.6.29 thing. Not that I know whether anybody actually _uses_ seccomp. It 
does seem to be enabled in at least Fedora kernels, but it might not be 
used anywhere.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>