Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201203214529.GB3579531@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20201203214529.GB3579531@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 3 Dec 2020 14:09:04 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiRNT+-ahz2KRUE7buYJMZ84bp=h_vGLrAaOKW3n_xyXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] saner elf compat
To:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 1:46 PM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
>  The answer (for mainline) is that mips compat does *NOT* want
> COMPAT_BINFMT_ELF.  Not a problem with that series, though, so I'd
> retested it (seems to work, both for x86_64 and mips64, execs and
> coredumps for all ABIs alike), with centralization of Kconfig logics
> thrown in.

Well, the diffstat looks nice:

>  26 files changed, 127 insertions(+), 317 deletions(-)

and the patches didn't trigger anything for me, but how much did this
get tested? Do you actually have both kinds of 32-bit elf mips
binaries around and a machine to test on?

Linux-mips was cc'd, but I'm adding Thomas B to the cc here explicitly
just so that he has a heads-up on this thing and can go and look at
the mailing list in case it goes to a separate mailbox for him..

               Linus