> > config COMPAT_VDSO
> > def_bool y
> > prompt "Compat VDSO support"
> > depends on X86_32 || IA32_EMULATION
> > ---help---
> > Map the 32-bit VDSO to the predictable old-style address too.
> >
> > Say N here if you are running a sufficiently
config COMPAT_VDSO
def_bool y
prompt Compat VDSO support
depends on X86_32 || IA32_EMULATION
---help---
Map the 32-bit VDSO to the predictable old-style address too.
Say N here if you are running a sufficiently recent glibc
Sorry, I did not know/realize, and unfortunately "he" is the grammatical
default in English, although the singular they is fortunately making a comeback.
I stand corrected, through. Please acer my apologies.
-hpa
On February 2, 2014 3:20:25 AM PST, Stefani Seibold wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >>
> >>
> >> -#define VDSO_HIGH_BASE 0xe000U /* CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO address
> >> */
> >> +#define VDSO_HIGH_BASE 0xc000U /* CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO address
> >> */
> >
> > This is odd. Can you explain it?
> >
>
> He needs 3 pages instead of 1 after his changes.
>
Not every
-#define VDSO_HIGH_BASE 0xe000U /* CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO address
*/
+#define VDSO_HIGH_BASE 0xc000U /* CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO address
*/
This is odd. Can you explain it?
He needs 3 pages instead of 1 after his changes.
Not every kernel hackers a male.
Sorry, I did not know/realize, and unfortunately he is the grammatical
default in English, although the singular they is fortunately making a comeback.
I stand corrected, through. Please acer my apologies.
-hpa
On February 2, 2014 3:20:25 AM PST, Stefani Seibold stef...@seibold.net wrote:
On 02/01/2014 04:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>> Right. But there's some obscure ABI reason for CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO,
>> and if this breaks it, then it's no good. From extremely vague
>> memory, there's some version of SuSE that breaks if the 32-bit vdso
>> moves. I have no idea what the bug
Yes, that we can move, of course.
On February 1, 2014 4:30:17 PM PST, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:26 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 02/01/2014 03:59 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
>>> If it is, indeed, okay to use non-fixed maps on 32-bit, it might
>>> also be okay on
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:26 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/01/2014 03:59 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> If it is, indeed, okay to use non-fixed maps on 32-bit, it might
>> also be okay on 64-bit. If so, it could be useful to implement that,
>> which would remove a bit of a wart and allow
On 02/01/2014 03:59 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> If it is, indeed, okay to use non-fixed maps on 32-bit, it might
> also be okay on 64-bit. If so, it could be useful to implement that,
> which would remove a bit of a wart and allow PR_SET_TSC to work
> usefully for 64-bit userspace. (This
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:32 AM, wrote:
> From: Stefani Seibold
>
> This patch add the time support for 32 bit a VDSO to a 32 bit kernel.
>
> For 32 bit programs running on a 32 bit kernel, the same mechanism is
> used as for 64 bit programs running on a 64 bit kernel.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefani
From: Stefani Seibold
This patch add the time support for 32 bit a VDSO to a 32 bit kernel.
For 32 bit programs running on a 32 bit kernel, the same mechanism is
used as for 64 bit programs running on a 64 bit kernel.
Signed-off-by: Stefani Seibold
---
arch/x86/include/asm/elf.h|
From: Stefani Seibold stef...@seibold.net
This patch add the time support for 32 bit a VDSO to a 32 bit kernel.
For 32 bit programs running on a 32 bit kernel, the same mechanism is
used as for 64 bit programs running on a 64 bit kernel.
Signed-off-by: Stefani Seibold stef...@seibold.net
---
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:32 AM, stef...@seibold.net wrote:
From: Stefani Seibold stef...@seibold.net
This patch add the time support for 32 bit a VDSO to a 32 bit kernel.
For 32 bit programs running on a 32 bit kernel, the same mechanism is
used as for 64 bit programs running on a 64 bit
On 02/01/2014 03:59 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
If it is, indeed, okay to use non-fixed maps on 32-bit, it might
also be okay on 64-bit. If so, it could be useful to implement that,
which would remove a bit of a wart and allow PR_SET_TSC to work
usefully for 64-bit userspace. (This would
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:26 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 02/01/2014 03:59 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
If it is, indeed, okay to use non-fixed maps on 32-bit, it might
also be okay on 64-bit. If so, it could be useful to implement that,
which would remove a bit of a wart and
Yes, that we can move, of course.
On February 1, 2014 4:30:17 PM PST, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:26 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 02/01/2014 03:59 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
If it is, indeed, okay to use non-fixed maps on 32-bit, it
On 02/01/2014 04:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Right. But there's some obscure ABI reason for CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO,
and if this breaks it, then it's no good. From extremely vague
memory, there's some version of SuSE that breaks if the 32-bit vdso
moves. I have no idea what the bug is, but
18 matches
Mail list logo
