[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200918134406.GA17064@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 15:44:06 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] kernel: add a PF_FORCE_COMPAT flag
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 02:40:12PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > /* Vector 0x110 is LINUX_32BIT_SYSCALL_TRAP */
> > - return pt_regs_trap_type(current_pt_regs()) == 0x110;
> > + return pt_regs_trap_type(current_pt_regs()) == 0x110 ||
> > + (current->flags & PF_FORCE_COMPAT);
>
> Can't say I like that approach ;-/ Reasoning about the behaviour is much
> harder when it's controlled like that - witness set_fs() shite...
I don't particularly like it either. But do you have a better idea
how to deal with io_uring vs compat tasks?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists