linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/1] x86: should 32 bit processes be PER

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1284480057-18120-1-git-send-email-apw@canonical.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:00:56 +0100
From:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/1] x86: should 32 bit processes be PER_LINUX32

While testing an x86 64 bit kernel on 32 bit userspace I noticed that I
was unexpectedly seeing x86_64 as the architecture as reported in uname.
The kernel seems to have code to detect 32 bit userspace and slam this
to i686, triggered off the personality PER_LINUX32.  However 32 bit
processes do not seem to get this flag.  I think this is an oversight.
The following patch attempts to fix this up.

-apw

Andy Whitcroft (1):
  x86: ensure we correctly advertise 32 bit processes in a 64 bit
    kernel

 arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

--
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/