From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: x32-abi@googlegroups.com, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, GCC Development <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,
GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: X32 psABI status
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:33:25 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110213213325.7bcc1a59@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D584A49.80306@zytor.com>
> The actual idea is to use the i386 compat ABI for memory layout, but
> with a 64-bit register convention. That means that system calls that
> don't make references to memory structures can simply use the 64-bit
> system calls, otherwise we're planning to reuse the i386 compat system
> calls, but invoke them via the syscall instruction (which requires a new
> system call table) and to pass 64-bit arguments in single registers.
Who actually needs this new extra API - whats the justification for
everyone having more crud dumping their kernels, more syscall paths
(which are one of the most security critical areas) and the like.
What are the benchmark numbers to justify this versus just using the
existing kernel interfaces ?
Alan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-13 21:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-12 19:41 H.J. Lu
2011-02-12 21:10 ` Florian Weimer
2011-02-12 21:29 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-12 23:04 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-02-13 3:02 ` Andrew Pinski
2011-02-13 8:48 ` Florian Weimer
2011-02-13 13:45 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-13 15:07 ` Florian Weimer
2011-02-13 15:13 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-13 15:21 ` Florian Weimer
2011-02-13 15:37 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-13 16:35 ` Petr Baudis
2011-02-13 16:48 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-13 17:37 ` Joseph S. Myers
2011-02-13 15:43 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2011-02-13 15:57 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-13 20:10 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-02-13 21:10 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-13 21:16 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-02-13 21:28 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-13 22:03 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-02-13 22:12 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-13 21:33 ` Alan Cox [this message]
2011-02-14 1:52 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-02-13 22:27 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-02-13 22:28 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-02-13 22:46 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-02-13 22:57 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-02-13 23:03 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-13 23:39 ` Alan Cox
2011-02-13 23:50 ` H.J. Lu
2011-02-14 1:59 ` H. Peter Anvin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110213213325.7bcc1a59@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--to=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=x32-abi@googlegroups.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®