[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKU6vyathpp4Ky_kcTu_WFenLEdo9Mai4TUE=EWYo9=UuQUMcg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:32:19 -0400
From: Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
David Laight <david.laight@...lab.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nicolas Schichan <nschichan@...ebox.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 3/3] ARM: net: bpf_jit_32: support
BPF_S_ANC_SECCOMP_LD_W instruction
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com> wrote:
> Arent't you doing here a similar thing in terms of getting arch as Eric
> criticized (Nicolas' implementation does not use that part btw.)? Also,
> even if it would be possible here, now your 2 JIT implementations differ
> in behaviour. I think this is unintended.
Eric's comment was about x86, where the audit arch could change on the
fly. For ARM, the audit arch doesn't change---syscall_get_arch()
always returns AUDIT_ARCH_ARM.
> Besides all that, I think I also pointed you to a patch that already made
> it in for ARM, not sure why you keep posting the ARM JIT implementation?
That's why I asked in the other post if you wanted me to rebase
against linux-next or net-next. The ARM part 3/3 is not needed if
rebased against linux-next with Nicolas's patches.
- xi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists