From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1E17C43463 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 03:00:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1268208C3 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 03:00:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B1268208C3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=zeniv.linux.org.uk Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BvC434BN2zDqdn for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 13:00:19 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=ftp.linux.org.uk (client-ip=2002:c35c:fd02::1; helo=zeniv.linux.org.uk; envelope-from=viro@ftp.linux.org.uk; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=zeniv.linux.org.uk Received: from ZenIV.linux.org.uk (zeniv.linux.org.uk [IPv6:2002:c35c:fd02::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BvC1W5qcVzDqvW for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 12:58:03 +1000 (AEST) Received: from viro by ZenIV.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kJpXt-0026Rb-Iq; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 02:57:45 +0000 Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2020 03:57:45 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Andy Lutomirski Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] kernel: add a PF_FORCE_COMPAT flag Message-ID: <20200920025745.GL3421308@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20200919224122.GJ3421308@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <36CF3DE7-7B4B-41FD-9818-FDF8A5B440FB@amacapital.net> <20200919232411.GK3421308@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-aio@kvack.org, "open list:MIPS" , David Howells , Linux-MM , keyrings@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux , Christoph Hellwig , linux-arch , linux-s390 , Linux SCSI List , X86 ML , Arnd Bergmann , linux-block , io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel , Jens Axboe , Parisc List , Network Development , LKML , LSM List , Linux FS Devel , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 05:14:41PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > 2) have you counted the syscalls that do and do not need that? > > No. Might be illuminating... > > 3) how many of those realistically *can* be unified with their > > compat counterparts? [hint: ioctl(2) cannot] > > There would be no requirement to unify anything. The idea is that > we'd get rid of all the global state flags. _What_ global state flags? When you have separate SYSCALL_DEFINE3(ioctl...) and COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE3(ioctl...), there's no flags at all, global or local. They only come into the play when you try to share the same function for both, right on the top level. > For ioctl, we'd have a new file_operation: > > long ioctl(struct file *, unsigned int, unsigned long, enum syscall_arch); > > I'm not saying this is easy, but I think it's possible and the result > would be more obviously correct than what we have now. No, it would not. Seriously, from time to time a bit of RTFS before grand proposals turns out to be useful.