linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 17/31] arm64: System calls handling

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:	Mon, 3 Sep 2012 12:39:51 +0000
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/31] arm64: System calls handling

On Monday 03 September 2012, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> I forgot about this at the KS and we haven't got to a clear conclusion.
> 
> Do we (1) stick with the sys_mmap() for 64-bit systems and avoid offset
> conversion in both glibc and kernel or (2) use sys_mmap2() with a 12
> shift in glibc and (PAGE_SHIFT - 12) in the kernel wrapper?
> 
> I personally prefer (1) as it doesn't require a kernel wrapper and we
> avoid the double shifting. 

Yes, I think it's ok this way.

> A reason for (2) would be if we ever need file offsets greater than 16EB.

Let's not worry about this for now, all the other architectures will
have the same problem when we get there.

	Arnd
--
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/