[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090228044614.GA17082@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 05:46:14 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64: seccomp: fix 32/64 syscall hole
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Ok, please explain this madness.
> >
> > The whole crazy IS_COMPAT_TASK dance seems to be too messy
> > for words. Why? What's going on?
>
> Ok, I can see what's going on. And it's disgusting.
>
> Just make everybody do that "is_compat_task()" thing. parisc
> already did, and you just made x86-64 do so too. The only
> remaining TIF_32BIT users are powerpc and sparc. So instead of
> having this insane crud, please just add the trivial
> definitions to the two remaining places, and we don't have to
> have this insane mess. Ok?
>
> It is clear that TIF_32BIT is _not_ a generic flag for
> 32/64-bit system calls, so let's stop pretending it is, and
> then having ugly special cases for when it's not.
Seconded.
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists