linux-kernel - Re: is avoiding compat ioctls possible?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	andi@...stfloor.org
Cc:	airlied@...ux.ie, dri-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: is avoiding compat ioctls possible?

From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:59:08 +0100

>>  	}
>> -	chunk_array_ptr = (uint64_t *)(unsigned long)(cs->chunks);
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
>> +	if (is_compat_task())
> 
> Are the COMPAT ifdefs really needed? The compiler should optimize that
> away anyways on non compat aware architectures, shouldn't it?

There are no non-compat is_compat_task() definitions, nor are there
non-compat build definitions of compat_uptr_t and the assosciated
interfaces.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/