linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH

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: <52444CED.40401@nod.at>
Date:	Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:04:13 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@...il.com>
CC:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
	Guan Xuetao <gxt@...c.pku.edu.cn>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
	Linux MIPS Mailing List <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
	Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
	uml-devel <user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH

Am 26.09.2013 16:36, schrieb Ramkumar Ramachandra:
> Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> Sorry for chiming in, but... what about cross compiling?
>>> SUBARCH=x86 should give you a 32-bit ia32 kernel, right?
>>
>> Correct.
>> Users expect from SUBARCH=x86 a i386 32bit UML kernel.
> 
> This is an insane expectation. This is kernel convention (it has
> nothing to do with uml):

Hmm, looks like I missed commit ffee0de411, thanks for pointing that out.
Before ffee0de411 "make defconfig ARCH=x86" produced a 32bit defconfig.
Now it produces a x86_64 defconfig.

As UML is a variant of x86 it makes not much sense to do things the other
way around even if we break assumptions.

And, of course, this makes your patch valid.
Can you also please ensure that your new defconfigs are minimal?
See make savedefconfig.

Thanks,
//richard

--
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/