[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMzpN2jircsR81ZLdq7r3UTVrM9Bp-PL7h=V+k5B93oJx26G-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 13:45:43 -0400
From: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86: add __X32_COND_SYSCALL() macro
An alternative to the patch I proposed earlier would be to use aliases
with the __x32_ prefix for the common syscalls.
--
Brian Gerst
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 1:14 PM <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
> On September 19, 2020 9:23:22 AM PDT, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:35 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 03:24:36PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> > sys_move_pages() is an optional syscall, and once we remove
> >> > the compat version of it in favor of the native one with an
> >> > in_compat_syscall() check, the x32 syscall table refers to
> >> > a __x32_sys_move_pages symbol that may not exist when the
> >> > syscall is disabled.
> >> >
> >> > Change the COND_SYSCALL() definition on x86 to also include
> >> > the redirection for x32.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> >>
> >> Adding the x86 maintainers and Brian Gerst. Brian proposed another
> >> problem to the mess that most of the compat syscall handlers used by
> >> x32 here:
> >>
> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/16/664
> >>
> >> hpa didn't particularly like it, but with your and my pending series
> >> we'll soon use more native than compat syscalls for x32, so something
> >> will need to change..
> >
> >I'm fine with either solution.
>
> My main objection was naming. x64 is a widely used synonym for x86-64, and so that is confusing.
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists