On 02/16/2012 01:51 PM, Will Drewry wrote: >> >> Put the bloody bit in there and let the pattern program make that decision. > > Easy enough to add a bit for the mode: 32-bit or 64-bit. It seemed > like a waste of cycles for every 32-bit program or every 64-bit > program to check to see that its calling convention hadn't changed, > but it does take away a valid decision the pattern program should be > making. > > I'll add a flag for 32bit/64bit while cleaning up seccomp_data. I > think that will properly encapsulate the is_compat_task() behavior in > a way that is stable for compat and non-compat tasks to use. If > there's a more obvious way, I'm all ears. > is_compat_task() is not going to be the right thing for x86 going forward, as we're introducing the x32 ABI (which uses the normal x86-64 entry point, but with different eax numbers, and bit 30 set.) The actual state is the TS_COMPAT flag in the thread_info structure, which currently matches is_compat_task(), but perhaps we should add a new helper function syscall_namespace() or something like that... Either that or we can just use another bit in the syscall number field... -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
