| To: | Kanoj Sarcar <kanoj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: My sys32_execve(). |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 2 Mar 2000 01:21:15 +0100 |
| Cc: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ulf Carlsson <ulfc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kanoj Sarcar <kanoj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-origin@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200003012334.PAA75414@google.engr.sgi.com> |
| References: | <20000302001922.A4992@uni-koblenz.de> <200003012334.PAA75414@google.engr.sgi.com> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-origin@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 03:34:15PM -0800, Kanoj Sarcar wrote: > While we are at it, maybe its time we came up with rules for > determining which system calls need to be 32bitized. Other things > like TASK_SIZE also probably need to be 32bitized (similar to > TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE). The rules that I've been using is ``shit in, shit out'', that is I never try to catch arguments that aren't valid for 32-bit syscalls like passing addresses that aren't valid in a 32-bit world. That means that many system calls don't need wrappers. TASK_SIZE is the size of a native, that is 64-bit process in our case. We only need to consider the size of a 32-bit process for TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE which we do already. Ralf |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: My sys32_execve()., Kanoj Sarcar |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: My sys32_execve()., Kanoj Sarcar |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: My sys32_execve()., Kanoj Sarcar |
| Next by Thread: | Re: My sys32_execve()., Kanoj Sarcar |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |