Re: [PATCHv2 2/5] x86/mm: introduce mmap_{,legacy}_base

[Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@virtuozzo.com>]

On 01/17/2017 11:27 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@virtuozzo.com> 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@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>