Re: Bug#776999: broken 32-bit userland on 64-bit kernel
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 05:36:06PM -0600, D. Jared Dominguez wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 05:25:59PM -0600, Adam Borowski wrote:
> >On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 05:12:09PM -0600, D. Jared Dominguez wrote:
> >>On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 04:57:52PM -0600, Adam Borowski wrote:
> >>>If I read that correctly, #773412 fixed i386 on an i386 kernel. As you can
> >>>see in the dumps above, i386 userland on an amd64 kernel receives a 32-bit
> >>>field rather than 64-bit that patch wants.
> >>
> >>It's for 32-bit efivar/efibootmgr on 64-bit kernel with 32-bit UEFI
> >>(which is why 32-bit efithings are used).
> >
> >Let's see if I understand right:
> >a) 32-bit efivar on 64-bit kernel on 32-bit UEFI receives 64-bit fields,
> >b) 32-bit efivar on 64-bit kernel on 64-bit UEFI receives 32-bit fields,
> >c) 64-bit efivar on 64-bit kernel on 64-bit UEFI receives 64-bit fields.
> >
> >a) is claimed in the patch from Dec 17, b) and c) come in dumps I quoted.
>
> Not just claims but does. Remember that you're using the x32 ABI,
> which is different.
While initially I found the issue on x32, the same happens on i386.
I wonder how to tell these cases apart then -- both have 32-bit userland on
64-bit kernel (not just efivar, even cat gets such fields).
Or perhaps I'm missing something?
--
// If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
// cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple
// of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
// your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices.
Reply to: