Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] xfrm: add x86 CONFIG_COMPAT support

From: Patrick McHardy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:45:51 +0200

Florian Westphal wrote:
> David Miller <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> From: Florian Westphal <[email-masked]>
>> Date: Tue,  6 Apr 2010 00:27:07 +0200
> 
> [..]
> 
>>> I sent a patch that solved this by adding a sys_compat_write syscall
>>> and a ->compat_aio_write() to struct file_operations to the
>>> vfs mailing list, but that patch was ignored by the vfs people,
>>> and the x86 folks did not exactly like the idea either.
>>>
>>> So this leaves three alternatives:
>>> 1 - drop the whole idea and keep the current status.
>>> 2 - Add new structure definitions (with new numbering) that would work
>>>     everywhere, keep the old ones for backwards compatibility (This
>>>     was suggested by Arnd Bergmann).

Given that there is only a quite small number of users of this
interface, that would in my opinion be the best way.

>>> 3 - apply this patch set and tell userspace to move the sendmsg() when
>>>     they want to work with xfrm on x86_64 with 32 bit userland.
>> So do we know of any xfrm netlink apps that do not use sendmsg()?