From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:24:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:30110 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20809009AbZB1RYY (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:24:24 +0000 Received: from imap1.linux-foundation.org (imap1.linux-foundation.org [140.211.169.55]) by smtp1.linux-foundation.org (8.14.2/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id n1SHNcCr017887 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 28 Feb 2009 09:23:39 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by imap1.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id n1SHNan3025069; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 09:23:36 -0800 Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 09:23:36 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds X-X-Sender: torvalds@localhost.localdomain To: Roland McGrath cc: Andrew Morton , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64: seccomp: fix 32/64 syscall hole In-Reply-To: <20090228072554.CFEA6FC3DA@magilla.sf.frob.com> Message-ID: References: <20090228030226.C0D34FC3DA@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20090228030413.5B915FC3DA@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20090228072554.CFEA6FC3DA@magilla.sf.frob.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-MIMEDefang-Filter: lf$Revision: 1.188 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.63 on 140.211.169.13 Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 21984 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: torvalds@linux-foundation.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Roland McGrath wrote: > > I don't know any other arch well enough to be sure that TIF_32BIT isn't the > wrong test there too. I'd like to leave that worry to the arch maintainers. Agreed - it may be that others will want to not use TIF_32BIT too. It really does make much more sense to have it as a thread-local status flag than as an atomic (and thus expensive to modify) thread-flag, not just on x86. But I think other architectures will find it easier to see what's going on if the code is straightforward and they can just fix their 'is_compat_task()' function. And: > But here is the patch you asked for. Yes, this looks much more straightforward. And I guess the seccomp interaction means that this is potentially a 2.6.29 thing. Not that I know whether anybody actually _uses_ seccomp. It does seem to be enabled in at least Fedora kernels, but it might not be used anywhere. Linus