[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B7ADB07.1050500@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:51:03 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: set_personality_ia32() abuses TS_COMPAT
On 02/16/2010 09:44 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/16, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> And after we have switched to 32-bit mode, we _are_ inside a 32-bit system
>> call: the execve has "changed" from a 64-bit one to a 32-bit one.
>>
>> So I really don't understand why you dislike TS_COMPAT here.
>
> and, following this logic, shouldn't set_personality_64bit() clear
> TS_COMPAT ?
>
It's quite possible it should... I haven't dug into if that isn't either
done elsewhere or isn't done for some other reason. This would be worth
looking into.
> OK, in any case I do not claim we need fixes. Just I am confused.
Trying to understand the code is good. However, you seem to have
started out with a point of view that we should have the minimal set of
state changes possible instead of keeping state as self-consistent as
possible. Invariants are a Very Good Thing. Documented invariants are
even better ;)
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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