linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/7] remove all remaining

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:44:28 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
CC:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	jdike@...toit.com, B.Steinbrink@....de, arjan@...radead.org,
	chase.venters@...entec.com, akpm@...l.org,
	rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] remove all remaining _syscallX macros

Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Monday 28 August 2006 16:05, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
>> The patch below should address both these issues, as long as the libc
>> has a working implementation of syscall(2).
> 
> I would prefer the _syscall() macros to stay independent of the 
> actual glibc version. Or what do you do otherwise on a system
> with old glibc? Upgrading glibc is normally a major PITA.
> 

Why don't you just have a private version of the macros?

syscall(2) is, again, a horrible botch -- on architectures which 
requires alignment for register pairs, the extra register buggers up the 
alignment.  One *can* work around it by making the syscall number 64 
bits, but I think it's safe to say that no libc does that currently.

	-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/