2:29 a.m.
Happy new Year!
Arjan wrote, 2018-12-29:
On 12/29/2018 1:24 PM, Sven Hartrumpf wrote:
I followed this discussion in December.
The drop proposal came from Andy Lutomirski and Linus asked for
"complaints" - and he received some (IMHO relevant) complaints from quite
diverse areas of users and use cases. (I can collect the URLs of
these complaints if anyone is interested.)
Unfortunately, the main discussion led to technical details of possible
improvements/mistakes and the original question
("Who is using x32 and would complain if x32 were dropped?")
was somehow lost in the thread.
It was pointed out by H.J. Lu that building a CONFIG_X86_X32-enabled kernel
with X86-64 binutils and GCC is straigtforward, see
https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg2986535.html
Anyway, the discussion seems to have died without any decision.
I can understand that this discussion leads to irritations and doubts.
If so, we could wait a little longer till the irritation disappears
(hopefully :-) ) and the dust settles.
Sven
Arjan wrote, 2016-12-25:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/10/1151
just when Linus and co are discussing dropping it entirely ... On 12/25/2016 8:58 AM, Sven wrote:
In the past 2
years, there has been no security problem that was
X32-specific
AFAIK.
Hence, I would like to ask you to reconsider the ability to run X32
binaries. Hello Arjan.
Thanks for your answers.
Arjan van de Ven <arjan(a)linux.intel.com> wrote, 2016-12-25 07:21:
> On 12/25/2016 1:19 AM, SH wrote:
>> Does Clear Linux support running binaries for the x32 ABI?
>
> currently we do not support this; we can certainly look into it,
> the most complicated factor will be build infrastructure rather
> than packaging.
That's true if you want to allow compiling in x32 mode.
It's easier for running x32 binaries (maybe produced on another system):
this requires only that the kernel
contains the given feature (CONFIG_X86_X32).
For example, I regularly build my x32 binaries on Ubuntu (which has
a x32 tool chain and libraries) and can run the (statically
linked) x32 binary on openSUSE boxes (which have no x32 tool chain and
no x32 libraries).
well the flipside argument is one of security attack surface; adding a
whole
new surface for something we don't ship/use ourselves will give the
security
folks some shivers..... it's a bit of a balance as a result.