On Wednesday 13 August 2014 03:06:53 Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On the kernel side, it also adds more complexity, where we have to add
> > even more complex compat support for 64bit systems to handle all the
> > various 32bit applications possible.
> [...]
>
> Didn't we need to do this already to support x32? Have compat ioctls
> involving time been botched?
AFAICT, every ioctl that involves passing a __kernel_ulong_t or
__kernel_ulong_t is potentially broken on x32, and this includes
everything passing a time_t or timespec.
The problem is that the libc ioctl() function ends up in the kernel's
compat_ioctl handler, which expects the 32-bit ABI, not the 64-bit ABI.
Most other syscalls in x32 however use the 64-bit ABI.
It works only for drivers that use the same function for .ioctl and
.compat_ioctl, and that encode the size of the data structure correctly
in the ioctl command code. I assume this is how we will do it for all
32-bit architectures with 64-bit time_t, but on x32 it also concerns
other types that use __kernel_long_t.
Arnd
--
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/
