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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 19:38:14 -0400 (EDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: viro@...IV.linux.org.uk Cc: hpa@...or.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ralf@...ux-mips.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] broken TASK_SIZE for ia32_aout From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 00:32:34 +0100 > bit looks dubious. What happens when 32bit task makes a 64bit syscall? > Do we really want to drop upper 32 bits of all arguments in the copy we > are building? I basically never intended to support 32-bit tasks making 64-bit system calls except in extremely limited situations such as ptrace() so that a 32-bit gdb could debug 64-bit tasks. Do we really have to support crap like this? -- 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