On 02/16/2010 09:44 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
quoted text
> On 02/16, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> And after we have switched to 32-bit mode, we _are_ inside a 32-bit system
>> call: the execve has "changed" from a 64-bit one to a 32-bit one.
>>
>> So I really don't understand why you dislike TS_COMPAT here.
> 
> and, following this logic, shouldn't set_personality_64bit() clear
> TS_COMPAT ?
> 

It's quite possible it should... I haven't dug into if that isn't either
done elsewhere or isn't done for some other reason.  This would be worth
looking into.

quoted text
> OK, in any case I do not claim we need fixes. Just I am confused.

Trying to understand the code is good.  However, you seem to have
started out with a point of view that we should have the minimal set of
state changes possible instead of keeping state as self-consistent as
possible.  Invariants are a Very Good Thing.  Documented invariants are
even better ;)

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/