[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151208051505.GL20997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 05:15:05 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PSEUDOPATCH] rename is_compat_task
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 06:01:48AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Hm, so if Sparc has no notion of compat-ness of the system call then how does it
> implement runtime compat checks, such as AUDIT_ARCH et al?
Badly. Things like compat_sys_ioctl() vs. ioctl() work (we use different
arrays of function pointers in 32bit and 64bit traps), but anything
dynamic assumes that things match the task. Not that we had a lot of
such dynamic checks, actually...
--
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