From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1755876AbZB1VNp@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755876AbZB1VNp (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:13:45 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754025AbZB1VNh
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:13:37 -0500
Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:56755 "EHLO gate.crashing.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753518AbZB1VNg (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:13:36 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64: seccomp: fix 32/64 syscall hole
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org,
       x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
       sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       stable@kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902280916470.3111@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20090228030226.C0D34FC3DA@magilla.sf.frob.com>
	 <20090228030413.5B915FC3DA@magilla.sf.frob.com>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902271932520.3111@localhost.localdomain>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902271948570.3111@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20090228072554.CFEA6FC3DA@magilla.sf.frob.com>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902280916470.3111@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 08:09:39 +1100
Message-Id: <1235855379.7388.113.camel@pasglop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.3 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 09:23 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 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.

FYI. _TIF_32BIT is the right test on powerpc (it's also what entry_64.S
tests to pick the appropriate syscall table).

Cheers,
Ben.