linux-kernel - Re: X32 project status update

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: <BANLkTi=tdfG3jpCJQpozpxjBmR7ZicgV9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 21 May 2011 08:34:59 -0700
From:	"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	GCC Development <gcc@....gnu.org>,
	GNU C Library <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x32-abi@...glegroups.com,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>
Subject: Re: X32 project status update

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Saturday 21 May 2011 17:01:33 H.J. Lu wrote:
>> This is the x32 project status update:
>>
>> https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/
>>
>
> I've had another look at the kernel patch. It basically
> looks all good, but the system call table appears to
> diverge from the x86_64 list for no (documented) reason,
> in the calls above 302. Is that intentional?
>
> I can see why you might want to keep the numbers identical,
> but if they are already different, why not use the generic
> system call table from asm-generic/unistd.h for the new
> ABI?

We can sort it out when we start merging x32 kernel changes.


-- 
H.J.
--
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/