linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/24] ILP32 for ARM64

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: <2947000.5TRODaJfhK@wuerfel>
Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 2015 00:28:09 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Andreas Kraschitzer <andreas.kraschitzer@...obroma-systems.com>,
	Benedikt Huber <benedikt.huber@...obroma-systems.com>,
	"Pinski, Andrew" <Andrew.Pinski@...iumnetworks.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Pinski <apinski@...ium.com>,
	Kumar Sankaran <ksankaran@....com>,
	"Dr. Philipp Tomsich" <philipp.tomsich@...obroma-systems.com>,
	Christoph Muellner <christoph.muellner@...obroma-systems.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/24] ILP32 for ARM64

On Tuesday 14 April 2015 16:00:34 Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 04:07:36PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > For completeness, there is yet another option, which would be to use the
> > exact system call table from arm64 and do all the emulation in user space
> > rather than the kernel. This would however be the least compatible with
> > existing source code, so you probably don't want to do that.
> 
> It would be great if this worked but I think we looked at it before and
> it seems nice until you hit the futex stuff and robust lists (I don't
> fully remember the details). Some of the structures (siginfo) would no
> longer be POSIX compliant and some of them aren't only accessed via libc
> to be able to create shadow copies.

Well, that may or may not be acceptable. Aarch64-ilp32 mode is a hack to
enable a very special class of applications, it's not like anyone would
want to run a full system for this and need POSIX compliance.

We could definitely be pragmatic and do whatever helps get the job
done. That said, it diverges further from what legacy 32-bit applications
expect to see, so this approach will likely make an application port harder,
not easier.

	Arnd
--
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/