Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1606026 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCHv3] x86/mm: set x32 syscall bit in SET_PERSONALITY()

Started byhpa@zytor.com
First post2017-03-21 23:30 +0100
Last post2017-03-21 23:40 +0100
Articles 2 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [PATCHv3] x86/mm: set x32 syscall bit in SET_PERSONALITY() hpa@zytor.com - 2017-03-21 23:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCHv3] x86/mm: set x32 syscall bit in SET_PERSONALITY() Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-03-21 23:40 +0100

#1606026 — Re: [PATCHv3] x86/mm: set x32 syscall bit in SET_PERSONALITY()

Fromhpa@zytor.com
Date2017-03-21 23:30 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCHv3] x86/mm: set x32 syscall bit in SET_PERSONALITY()
Message-ID<tnArT-1fs-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
On March 21, 2017 3:21:13 PM PDT, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>> v3:
>> - clear x32 syscall flag during x32 -> x86-64 exec() (thanks, HPA).
>
>For correctness sake, this wants to be cleared in the IA32 path as
>well. It's not causing any harm, but ....
>
>I'll amend the patch.
>
>Thanks,
>
>	tglx

Since the i386 syscall namespace is totally separate (and different), should we simply change the system call number to the appropriate sys_execve number?
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1606040

FromThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Date2017-03-21 23:40 +0100
Message-ID<tnABA-1iQ-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1606026
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, hpa@zytor.com wrote:

> On March 21, 2017 3:21:13 PM PDT, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> >> v3:
> >> - clear x32 syscall flag during x32 -> x86-64 exec() (thanks, HPA).
> >
> >For correctness sake, this wants to be cleared in the IA32 path as
> >well. It's not causing any harm, but ....
> >
> >I'll amend the patch.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >	tglx
>
> Since the i386 syscall namespace is totally separate (and different),
> should we simply change the system call number to the appropriate
> sys_execve number?

That should work as well and would be more intuitive.

Thanks,

	tglx

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web