Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F84F788.3020702@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:16:24 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de,
        davem@...emloft.net, mingo@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, rdunlap@...otime.net, mcgrathr@...omium.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, luto@....edu, eparis@...hat.com,
        serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org, scarybeasts@...il.com,
        indan@....nu, pmoore@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        corbet@....net, eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org,
        coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 04/13] arch/x86: add syscall_get_arch to syscall.h

On 04/10/2012 08:13 PM, Will Drewry wrote:
> 
> Now that I've seen is_ia32_task(), it appears to be exactly the same as above:
> (1)  If we're x86_32, it's ia32
> (2)  If we're x86_64, ia32 == !!(status & TS_COMPAT)
> (3)  Otherwise, it's x86_64, including x32
> 
> Am I missing something? Should is_ia32_task(void) take a task_struct?
> Right now, I don't see any reason to change the code, as posted, but
> maybe I am mis-reading?
> 

is_compat_task() is true for x32, is_ia32_task() is false.

	-hpa

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.