Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1606026 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hpa@zytor.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-21 23:30 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-03-21 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.
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
| From | hpa@zytor.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-21 23:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [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]
| From | Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-21 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