linux-kernel - Re: 64-syscall args on 32-bit vs syscall()

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:	Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:53:00 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
CC:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>, munroesj@...ibm.com,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel@...savvy.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: 64-syscall args on 32-bit vs syscall()

On 03/17/2010 01:35 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 11:30 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Again, this is *exactly* symbol versioning done by hand... we have
>> proper symbol versioning, let's use it.
>
> Yeah, whatever, I don't mind what technique you use for the versionning,
> ultimately, if the approach works, we can look at those details :-) We
> -do- need the macro to strip the dummy argument though, unless we use
> a slightly different technique which is to make the __sysno argument
> itself 64-bit, which works as well I believe.
>

It seems cleaner to do it that way (with a 64-bit sysno arg.)

	-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/