linux-kernel - Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24

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: <20071002075924.GB30490@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:59:24 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, apw@...dowen.org,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24

> Grumble. The options are:
> 
> a) export it in the kernel's native size and have userspace figure it
> out
> b) add a header
> c) lie to 32-bit apps on 64-bit kernels
> d) always export 32 bits
> e) always export 64 bits
> 
> I started with (a), switched to (b), and then Alan and Dave convinced
> me to switch back to (a). I don't think (c) is desireable, especially
> as it means having two code paths. (d) would work until memory got
> large enough that PFNs didn't fit in 32 bits. (e) would be ok all
> around, except for the extra overhead. Ho hum.

If the overhead of (e) is ok for 64bit it should be ok for 32bit too.

-Andi
-
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/