linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64: seccomp: fix 32/64 syscall hole
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 08:09:39 +1100
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, stable@kernel.org
In-reply-to: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902280916470.3111@localhost.localdomain>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20090228030226.C0D34FC3DA@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20090228030413.5B915FC3DA@magilla.sf.frob.com> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902271932520.3111@localhost.localdomain> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902271948570.3111@localhost.localdomain> <20090228072554.CFEA6FC3DA@magilla.sf.frob.com> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902280916470.3111@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 09:23 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 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 
> x86.

FYI. _TIF_32BIT is the right test on powerpc (it's also what entry_64.S
tests to pick the appropriate syscall table).

Cheers,
Ben.



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