[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXSS3K8v_o18F50nmdUtZ1DAhnbmFtnLgrqwH1SXPxiOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 21:52:31 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
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 Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> 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...
I wouldn't take x86 as a shining example of how to do this, but it
does mostly work. In 4.4, it's not even all that messy, modulo a
bunch of checks that check the wrong condition (hence, in part, this
proposal).
--Andy
--
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