[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902280916470.3111@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 09:23:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64: seccomp: fix 32/64 syscall hole
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> I don't know any other arch well enough to be sure that TIF_32BIT isn't the
> wrong test there too. I'd like to leave that worry to the arch maintainers.
Agreed - it may be that others will want to not use TIF_32BIT too. It
really does make much more sense to have it as a thread-local status flag
than as an atomic (and thus expensive to modify) thread-flag, not just on
x86.
But I think other architectures will find it easier to see what's going on
if the code is straightforward and they can just fix their
'is_compat_task()' function. And:
> But here is the patch you asked for.
Yes, this looks much more straightforward.
And I guess the seccomp interaction means that this is potentially a
2.6.29 thing. Not that I know whether anybody actually _uses_ seccomp. It
does seem to be enabled in at least Fedora kernels, but it might not be
used anywhere.
Linus
--
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