From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86, mpx: explicitly disable 32-bit MPX support on 64-bit kernels
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 10:19:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141223091944.GB9112@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrXF11MeP8vc4eKqJz+2OOYQzmrK_erVEz=pZS3c=YWibw@mail.gmail.com>
* Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> wrote:
> > On 12/22/2014 12:17 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>> > /*
> >>> > + * 32-bit binaries on 64-bit kernels are currently
> >>> > + * unsupported.
> >>> > + */
> >>> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64) && test_thread_flag(TIF_IA32))
> >>> > + return MPX_INVALID_BOUNDS_DIR;
> >> Should this check mm->ia32_compat instead?
> >
> > set_personality_64bit/ia32() seem to make that and TIF_IA32 awfully
> > equivalent. Is there a specific reason for wanting it done this way?
>
> My general desire to remove various bogus TIF_IA32 references.
> [...]
So we generally want to use mm->context.ia32_compat instead of
TIF_IA32, because in the end TIF_IA32 will go away altogether?
Or do you just want to audit all TIF_IA32 places (because most of
them are wrong), and using mm->context.ia32_compat where it's
justified and eliminating TIF_IA32 use is a nice way to document
that ongoing audit without breaking stuff and such?
> [...] But this is only temporary, so I don't really care.
New code that touches this area should better use new principles,
so I have no problem with requiring this, as long as it's well
explained and logical and desirable to everyone.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-23 9:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-22 20:08 [PATCH 0/2] x86, mpx: Fixes for 3.19 Dave Hansen
2014-12-22 20:08 ` [PATCH 1/2] x86, mpx: explicitly disable 32-bit MPX support on 64-bit kernels Dave Hansen
2014-12-22 20:17 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-12-22 20:21 ` Dave Hansen
2014-12-22 20:27 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-12-23 9:19 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2014-12-23 18:48 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-12-22 20:08 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86 mpx: fix potential performance issue on unmaps Dave Hansen
2014-12-23 9:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-01-09 18:47 ` Dave Hansen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20141223091944.GB9112@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox