[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4d07ec00-d1fb-1710-063e-670a18c33caf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 19:26:34 +0300
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
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 20/09/2020 22:22, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 08:10:31PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>> IMO it's much saner to mark those and refuse to touch them from io_uring...
>
> Simpler solution is to remove io_uring from the 32-bit syscall list.
> If you're a 32-bit process, you don't get to use io_uring. Would
> any real users actually care about that?
There were .net and\or wine (which AFAIK often works in compat) guys
experimenting with io_uring, they might want it.
--
Pavel Begunkov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists