[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200324184754.GG53396@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 14:47:54 -0400
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Give 32bit personalities 32bit hashes
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 09:29:58AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> On the contrary, that would be a much better interface for QEMU.
> We always know when we're doing an open-syscall on behalf
> of the guest, and it would be trivial to make the fcntl() call then.
> That would ensure that we don't accidentally get the
> '32-bit semantics' on file descriptors QEMU opens for its own
> purposes, and wouldn't leave us open to the risk in future that
> setting the PER_LINUX32 flag for all of QEMU causes
> unexpected extra behaviour in future kernels that would be correct
> for the guest binary but wrong/broken for QEMU's own internals.
If using a flag set by fcntl is better for qemu, then by all means
let's go with that instead of using a personality flag/number.
Linus, do you have what you need to do a respin of the patch?
- Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists