linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v21 011/100] eclone (11/11): Document sys

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]

Message-ID: <4C0FE17B.10108@zytor.com>
Date:	Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:46:19 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	Albert Cahalan <acahalan@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	randy.dunlap@...cle.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	roland@...hat.com, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v21 011/100] eclone (11/11): Document sys_eclone

On 06/09/2010 11:14 AM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> | 
> | Even for x86, it's an easier API. Callers would be specifying
> | two numbers they already have: the argument and return value
> | for malloc. Currently the numbers must be added together,
> | destroying information, except on hppa (must not add size)
> | and ia64 (must use what I'm proposing already).
> 
> I agree its easier and would avoid #ifdefs in the applications.
> 
> Peter, Arnd, Roland - do you have any concerns with requiring all
> architectures to specify the stack to eclone() as [base, offset]
> 

Makes sense to me.  There might be advantages to be able to track the
size of the "stack allocation" even for other architectures, too.

	-hpa
--
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/