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: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:20:22 +0200 From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> To: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com> Cc: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, akpm <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts/checksyscalls.sh: only whine perf_counter_open when supported On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 06:55:45AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 06:11, Paul Mundt wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 05:55:44AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 05:37, Paul Mundt wrote: > >> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:29, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> >> If the port does not support HAVE_PERF_COUNTERS, then they can't support > >> >> the perf_counter_open syscall either. ??Rather than forcing everyone to add > >> >> an ignore (or suffer the warning until they get around to implementing > >> >> support), only whine about the syscall when applicable. > >> > > >> > I fail to see why this is necessary? cond_syscall() takes care of this in > >> > the not implemented case, the same as every other syscall backing some > >> > feature that has yet to be implemented. > >> > >> i dont think we should go hassling every arch maintainer when a new > >> syscall is added that requires arch-specific support for optional > >> features (especially when said features are debug in nature). if > >> wiring up the syscall is the only work because the code is all common > >> (like the pread/pwrite functions), then np of course. > > > > Perhaps not, but I do prefer to have the script whine at me when a new > > syscall pops up, just so I know when I have to start caring about a new > > feature. > > assuming you can find any useful info about said feature ;) > > > If a generic implementation becomes available, then it can be > > supported without having to backtrack and update place-holders. > > this is a good convincing point. Sam: please drop this patch if you > did get a chance to queue it up. OK - dropped. Sam -- 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