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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 31 Aug 2011 00:07:24 +0200
From:	Bernd Schubert <>
To:	Andreas Dilger <>
CC:	Ted Ts'o <>,
	Bernd Schubert <>,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3 2/4] Return 32/64-bit dir name hash according to usage

On 08/20/2011 08:23 AM, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2011-08-19, at 4:29 PM, Ted Ts'o wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 01:54:14PM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
>>> +static inline int is_32bit_api(void)
>>> +{
>>> +	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?
> No, is_compat_task() is upstream for most (all?) of the architectures
> that support hybrid 32-/64-bit operation.  It is set at 32-bit syscall
> entry when running on 64-bit architectures.
> The only minor error in this patch (fixed with a new version from Bernd)
> is that this should be under CONFIG_COMPAT instead of HAVE_IS_COMPAT_TASK.

Yes sorry again about this. Could you please see patch series v4 please?

>> 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....
> It is definitely available on x86_64.

Yep, otherwise it even wouldn't compile, at least not with patch series v4.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists