lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] x86: add __X32_COND_SYSCALL() macro
An alternative to the patch I proposed earlier would be to use aliases
with the __x32_ prefix for the common syscalls.

--
Brian Gerst

On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 1:14 PM <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>
> On September 19, 2020 9:23:22 AM PDT, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:35 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 03:24:36PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> > sys_move_pages() is an optional syscall, and once we remove
> >> > the compat version of it in favor of the native one with an
> >> > in_compat_syscall() check, the x32 syscall table refers to
> >> > a __x32_sys_move_pages symbol that may not exist when the
> >> > syscall is disabled.
> >> >
> >> > Change the COND_SYSCALL() definition on x86 to also include
> >> > the redirection for x32.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> >>
> >> Adding the x86 maintainers and Brian Gerst. Brian proposed another
> >> problem to the mess that most of the compat syscall handlers used by
> >> x32 here:
> >>
> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/16/664
> >>
> >> hpa didn't particularly like it, but with your and my pending series
> >> we'll soon use more native than compat syscalls for x32, so something
> >> will need to change..
> >
> >I'm fine with either solution.
>
> My main objection was naming. x64 is a widely used synonym for x86-64, and so that is confusing.
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-19 19:47    [W:0.055 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site