From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932288Ab2HUS2L (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:28:11 -0400 Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:59082 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932196Ab2HUS2G (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:28:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:27:31 +0100 From: Catalin Marinas To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Will Deacon , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/31] arm64: ELF definitions Message-ID: <20120821182731.GJ12708@arm.com> References: <1344966752-16102-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <201208151415.39570.arnd@arndb.de> <20120816102300.GG31784@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> <201208161237.53594.arnd@arndb.de> <20120821160653.GH12708@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 07:17:19PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Catalin Marinas > wrote: > > But I can see on x86 that it always reports x86_64 even if the task is > > x86_32. > > Really? > > $ uname -m > x86_64 > $ linux32 uname -m > i686 > $ Well, you set the personality explicitly with linux32. What I tested was with an x86_32 uname called directly (without linux32) and even though the ELF was a 32-bit one, it was reporting x86_64. In this AArch64 patch, a compat task was automatically setting the linux32 personality (which x86 does not do). Arnd's point is that the ELF file should not affect the personality and hence the uname value. This should only be done by an explicit call to sys_personality(). -- Catalin