On 04/27/2013 08:32 PM, Xi Wang wrote:
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Daniel Borkmann <dbork...@redhat.com> wrote:
Arent't you doing here a similar thing in terms of getting arch as Eric
criticized (Nicolas' implementation does not use that part btw.)? Also,
even if it would be possible here, now your 2 JIT implementations differ
in behaviour. I think this is unintended.
Eric's comment was about x86, where the audit arch could change on the
fly. For ARM, the audit arch doesn't change---syscall_get_arch()
always returns AUDIT_ARCH_ARM.
Hi,
Indeed, syscall_get_arch() will only return AUDIT_ARCH_ARM on ARM right now.
This might be more future proof to call syscall_get_arch() though. The main
reason that comes to my mind would be an AArch64 kernel with support for
AArch32 userland tasks. This would I expect require a different AUDIT_ARCH
constant to differenciate between AArch64 and AArch32 tasks.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Schichan
Freebox SAS
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
