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  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]
Date:	Sat, 28 Dec 2013 08:33:08 -0800
From:	Christoph Hellwig <>
To:	"H.J. Lu" <>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	LKML <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Update kernel uabi header files for x32

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 02:14:16PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> X32 uses the same kernel system call interface as x86-64 for many
> system calls.  However, "long" is 64-bit for x86-64 and is 32-bit for
> x32.  Where long or unsigned long are used in struct types for such
> system calls, they are wrong for x32.  __kernel_[u]long_t is [unsigned]
> long for all ABIs other than x32.  I am submitting 8 patches to replace
> long or unsigned long with __kernel_[u]long_t so that those struct types
> can be used with x32 system calls.

Independent on how this fixes things, how does the kernel_long_t name
here make any sense?

On x86-64 "kernel" long always is 64 bits wide.  The userspace ABI long
might be 32 or 64bits wide.

Currently kernel_long_t has almost no uses, so it might be a good time
to fix the name, define the rules for it, and last but not least
properly document the intent for thse types.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists