linux-kernel - Re: RFD: x32 ABI system call numbers

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: <CAMe9rOpdQ=N9pLX13mqigPdDPr0CkEW5+841u4bASicJ4i=b5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 3 Sep 2011 10:22:23 -0700
From:	"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
To:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Richard Kuo <rkuo@...eaurora.org>,
	Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
	Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
	Tobias Klauser <tklauser@...tanz.ch>
Subject: Re: RFD: x32 ABI system call numbers

On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 10:16 AM,  <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 09:40:55 PDT, "H. Peter Anvin" said:
>> Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 10:41:16 +0200, Arnd Bergmann said:
>> >
>> >(Admittedly, I'm tuning in late on this discussion, but...)
>> >
>> >> For the ioctl interface however, the __u64/__s64 type in the x32 ABI
>> >> must be defined with __attribute__((packed,aligned(4))) to match what
>> >> the kernel implements because it emulates the x86-32 ABI.
>> >
>> >Is this a cast-in-stone issue, or is it still not too late to change that?
>> >And if we change that, can we simplify anything?
>>
>> The complexity of changing that would be enormous.
>
> Oh, I know changing the x86-32 ABI is impossible - I meant changing the
> decision to emulate that ABI (as opposed to emulating the x86-64 ABI, or a
> variant thereof, or something else).  Or are we already commited to that
> route, even if we're still trying to figure out what syscalls to include?

We can't use 64bit ioctl for x32 if indirect pointers are ever passed
to ioctl.


-- 
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/