linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 3 2/4] Return 32/64-bit dir name hash according to usage type

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20110819222951.GC3578@thunk.org>
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:29:51 -0400
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...m.fraunhofer.de>
Cc:	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	bfields@...ldses.org, bernd.schubert@...tmail.fm,
	hch@...radead.org, adilger@...mcloud.com, yong.fan@...mcloud.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3 2/4] Return 32/64-bit dir name hash according to
 usage type

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 01:54:14PM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> +static inline int is_32bit_api(void)
> +{
> +#ifdef HAVE_IS_COMPAT_TASK
> +	return is_compat_task();
> +#else
> +	return (BITS_PER_LONG == 32);
> +#endif

I assume is_compat_task() is coming from another patch?  What is the
status of that change?

In the case where is_compat_task() is not defined, we can't just test
based on BITS_PER_LONG == 32, since even on an x86_64 machine, it's
possible we're running a 32-bit binary in compat mode....

	       	       	 	       	  - Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html