Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64: seccomp: fix 32/64 syscall hole
[Posted May 12, 2009 by corbet]
| From: |
| Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
| To: |
| Roland McGrath <roland-AT-redhat.com> |
| Subject: |
| Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64: seccomp: fix 32/64 syscall hole |
| Date: |
| Sat, 28 Feb 2009 09:23:36 -0800 (PST) |
| Message-ID: |
| <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902280916470.3111@localhost.localdomain> |
| Cc: |
| Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>, x86-AT-kernel.org,
linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, stable-AT-kernel.org,
linux-mips-AT-linux-mips.org, sparclinux-AT-vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev-AT-ozlabs.org |
| Archive‑link: | |
Article |
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.
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.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
