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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:04:12 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> CC: joseph@...esourcery.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: 64-bit syscall ABI issue David Miller wrote: > From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@...esourcery.com> > Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 20:56:57 +0000 (UTC) > > [ added linux-arch which is a great place to discuss these > kinds of issues. ] > >> What should the kernel syscall ABI be in such cases (any case where the >> syscall implementations expect arguments narrower than registers, so >> mainly 32-bit arguments on 64-bit platforms)? There are two obvious >> possibilities: > > In general we've taken the stance that the syscall dispatch > should create the proper calling environment for C code > implementing the system calls, and this thus means properly > sign and zero extending the arguments as expected by the C > calling convention. This is, in fact, rather fundamental (some ABIs don't require sign or zero extension, e.g. x86-64); otherwise libc's job becomes a whole lot harder. -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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists