From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754040Ab0INQB2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:01:28 -0400 Received: from adelie.canonical.com ([91.189.90.139]:41587 "EHLO adelie.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752488Ab0INQB0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:01:26 -0400 From: Andy Whitcroft To: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Christoph Hellwig Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft Subject: [PATCH 0/1] x86: should 32 bit processes be PER_LINUX32 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:00:56 +0100 Message-Id: <1284480057-18120-1-git-send-email-apw@canonical.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.0.4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org While testing an x86 64 bit kernel on 32 bit userspace I noticed that I was unexpectedly seeing x86_64 as the architecture as reported in uname. The kernel seems to have code to detect 32 bit userspace and slam this to i686, triggered off the personality PER_LINUX32. However 32 bit processes do not seem to get this flag. I think this is an oversight. The following patch attempts to fix this up. -apw Andy Whitcroft (1): x86: ensure we correctly advertise 32 bit processes in a 64 bit kernel arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)