linux-kernel - Re: is avoiding compat ioctls possible?

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:	Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:19:09 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	andi@...stfloor.org, airlied@...ux.ie,
	dri-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: is avoiding compat ioctls possible?

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 01:11:41AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:59:08 +0100
> 
> >>  	}
> >> -	chunk_array_ptr = (uint64_t *)(unsigned long)(cs->chunks);
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> >> +	if (is_compat_task())
> > 
> > Are the COMPAT ifdefs really needed? The compiler should optimize that
> > away anyways on non compat aware architectures, shouldn't it?
> 
> There are no non-compat is_compat_task() definitions, nor are there
> non-compat build definitions of compat_uptr_t and the assosciated
> interfaces.

That seems wrong then, better fix that too? It would be certainly better
than adding a lot of ifdefs.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/