linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64: seccomp: fix 32/64 syscall hole

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]

Date:	Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:52:09 -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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64: seccomp: fix 32/64 syscall hole

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.

			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/