On 01/17/2017 11:27 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In the following patch they will be used to compute:
- mmap_base in compat sys_mmap() in native 64-bit binary
and vice-versa
- mmap_base for native sys_mmap() in compat x32/ia32-bit binary.
I may be wrong here, but I suspect that you're repeating something
that I consider to be a mistake that's all over the x86 code.
Specifically, you're distinguishing "native" from "compat" instead of
"32-bit" from "64-bit". If you did the latter, then you wouldn't need
the "native" case to work differently on 32-bit kernels vs 64-bit
kernels, I think. Would making this change make your code simpler?
The x86 signal code is the worst offender IMO.
Yes, I also don't like to differ them especially by TIF_ADDR32 flag.
I did distinguishing for the reason that I needed to know for which
task 64/32-bit was computed mm->mmap_base.
Otherwise I could introduce mm->mmap_compat_base and don't differ
tasks by TIF_ADDR32 flag - only by in_compat_syscall(), but that
would change mm_struct generic code (adding a field to mm).
So, I thought it may have more opposition to add a field to mm
in generic code and fixed it here, in x86.
--Andy
--
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>